# Larry Junior Ward v. Gene M. Johnson, Warden, Sgt. Gardner, Chairman of Adjustment Committee

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 7, 1982 · 690 F.2d 1098

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469810

## Case

- **Full name:** Larry Junior WARD, Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Warden, Sgt. Gardner, Chairman of Adjustment Committee, Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 7, 1982
- **Citations:** 690 F.2d 1098; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24970
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hall
- **Judges:** Winter, Butzner, Russell, Widener, Hall, Phillips, Murnaghan, Sprouse, Ervin, Chapman
- **Cited by:** 41 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469810

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating the Court may have reached a different conclusion if “the plaintiff had been denied absolutely any ‘adversary’ hearing, or if he had been denied any notice of the charge against him, or if he had been denied the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers at the d…
- discussing the burden frivolous lawsuits relating to prison disciplinary hearings pose on courts and prison officials

## Opinion text

K. K. HALL, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
As I read the majority opinion, the law of this case is that under the facts presented, the defendant, Gardner, enjoys absolute immunity since he conducted a formal hearing in accordance with the guidelines of Butz v. Economou. I concur wholeheartedly in that determination. However, the opinion speculates that “Perhaps this case would be different if the plaintiff had been denied absolutely any ‘adversary’ hearing or if he had been denied any notice of the charge against him, or if he had been denied the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers at the disciplinary hearing....” This is pure dicta, which adds nothing to the case and seems to be sugar coating for a rule of law that I find is not bitter and needs no sweetening.
I concur, seeking refuge in the hope that the dicta in this case will be recognized as such and treated as unworthy of future consideration.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469810. Public record. Not legal advice.