Olim v. Wakinekona
- Decided
- April 26, 1983
- Docket
- 81-1581
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,076 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds, abrogated in part on other grounds, abrogated (not yet verified) · Burke v. Vermont
What later courts said
- holding that a state regulation does not create a protected liberty interest unless it places “substantive limitations on official discretion” — Juan Kent Branham v. Larry Meachum, Commissioner, Dept. Of Corrections Robert Kupec, Warden, Cci Somers and Lt. Champion, Cci Somers (1996)
- holding that the state may require procedures for reasons other than protection of substantive rights, but in so doing does not create independent substantive right — (untitled) (1996)
- holding that a prisoner has no con stitutionally protected interest in the place of his confinement — Akers v. Watts (2010)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*240] Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the transfer of a prisoner from a state prison in Hawaii to one in California implicates a liberty interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.