Morrissey v. Brewer
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Akrawi v. Remillet held that Morrissey did not clearly establish a hearing right when officials erroneously returned a parolee to parole rather than prison, and In re Personal Restraint of Lain declined to extend Morrissey's full revocation procedures to a governor's cancellation of parole before release. The other reviewed opinions applied Morrissey's parole-revocation framework, followed its own boundaries in different proceedings, reported treatment of other authorities, rejected adverse arguments, or lacked precedential status. Duplicate copies of the same opinion do not create duplicate entries.
10,789 later cases cite Morrissey v. Brewer; 233 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Morrissey v. Brewer?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Sixth Circuit held that Morrissey did not clearly establish a hearing right when officials erroneously returned a parolee to parole rather than prison.
Akrawi v. Remillet · Sixth Circuit · filed
But Morrissey does not speak to whether a return to parole, as opposed to a return to prison, constitutes a “grievous loss.” And a return to parole is all we have here. The reasoning in Morrissey therefore does not place “beyond debate” Akrawi’s contention that he was entitled to a hearing.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Washington declined to extend Morrissey's full revocation procedures to a governor's cancellation of parole before the inmate was released.
In re Personal Restraint of Lain · Supreme Court of Washington · filed
The nature of the proceedings at issue in this instance and the interests involved are sufficiently different from Morrissey such that we decline to impose its requirements.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Questioned
-
The court questioned Morrissey's footnote 8 intimation that due process does not apply to parole-grant hearings, concluding that later authority had seriously undermined, if not overruled, that proposition.
Craft v. Attorney General of United States · M.D. Pa. · filed
It should be noted that the intimation in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, at 482, n. 8, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), that Due Process does not apply to parole hearings which served as the basis for this Court’s similar conclusion in Wagner, has been seriously undermined, if not overruled. First, the Wolff decision intimates the directly contrary conclusion. Second, the case cited in footnote 8 of Morrissey for the no-due-process intimation was from the Second Circuit which has now clearly stated in Johnson v. Chairman, supra, that Due Process is applicable to parole hearings.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Morrissey v. Brewer and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace