Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
d an individual facing such a risk classification a constitutionally- mandated minimum level of due process. Doe, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 469, 471 (citing Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367 (1995)). While "the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding are not as extensive as t
rd's Recommendation Could Not Be Proven By Clear and Convincing Evidence. 20 B. The Court Improperly Relied on the Board's Recommendation Where the Facts Cited Therein Were Disputed and No Further Evidence Was Presented. 25 C. Determining Appellant To Be a Level 3 Offender Based on Factors That Were Not Proven
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
d an individual facing such a risk classification a constitutionally- mandated minimum level of due process. Doe, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 469, 471 (citing Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367 (1995)). While "the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding are not as extensive as t
rd's Recommendation Could Not Be Proven By Clear and Convincing Evidence. 20 B. The Court Improperly Relied on the Board's Recommendation Where the Facts Cited Therein Were Disputed and No Further Evidence Was Presented. 25 C. Determining Appellant To Be a Level 3 Offender Based on Factors That Were Not Proven
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
d an individual facing such a risk classification a constitutionally- mandated minimum level of due process. Doe, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 469, 471 (citing Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367 (1995)). While "the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding are not as extensive as t
rd's Recommendation Could Not Be Proven By Clear and Convincing Evidence. 20 B. The Court Improperly Relied on the Board's Recommendation Where the Facts Cited Therein Were Disputed and No Further Evidence Was Presented. 25 C. Determining Appellant To Be a Level 3 Offender Based on Factors That Were Not Proven
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
d an individual facing such a risk classification a constitutionally- mandated minimum level of due process. Doe, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 469, 471 (citing Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367 (1995)). While "the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding are not as extensive as t
rd's Recommendation Could Not Be Proven By Clear and Convincing Evidence. 20 B. The Court Improperly Relied on the Board's Recommendation Where the Facts Cited Therein Were Disputed and No Further Evidence Was Presented. 25 C. Determining Appellant To Be a Level 3 Offender Based on Factors That Were Not Proven
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (140)
Entities connected to both Doe v. Poritz and the Facts Cited Therein
Ruth Pickholz
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
Adriana Ross
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
George W. Bush
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
U.S. Virgin Islands
LOCATION4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
New York City
LOCATION4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
JG
Jack Goldberger
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
Jay Lefkowitz
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
Bill Richardson
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
ME
Megan
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
MW
Martin Weinberg
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
Kendall Coffey
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
Sarah Ferguson
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
Gilbert
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
MA
Matthews
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
JI
Jimenez
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
Legislature
ORGANIZATION4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
Brooks
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
Solomon
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON4 w/ Doe·4 w/ the