Wirsching v. State of Colorado

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “visitation with a particular person does not constitute basic necessity, the denial of which would violate the Eighth Amendment”
• holding that “visitation with a particular person does not constitute basic necessity, the denial of which would violate the Eighth Amendment”
• recognizing that firm waiver rule is not jurisdictional and applying interests of justice exception where pro se party claimed he had not received magistrate judge’s order and had otherwise been an attentive litigant
• stating courts “conside[r] the appellant’s conduct upon learning of [an R&R]” (discussing Theede)
• “[V]isitation with a particular person does not constitute basic necessity, the denial of which would violate the Eighth Amendment.” (citing Ky. Dep’t of Corrections v. 490 U.S. 454, 461 (1989))
• Colorado’s treatment program and other disciplinary sanctions do not raise double jeopardy concerns

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).