G. Mew

The applicant, an inmate serving a two-year sentence, sought habeas corpus to challenge his transfer from administrative segregation at one maximum-security penitentiary to another.

The respondent brought a cross-motion challenging jurisdiction.

The court held that a lateral transfer between equivalent regimes at different maximum-security institutions does not constitute a substantial change in conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty.

The respondent's motion was granted and the application for habeas corpus was dismissed.

During a civil jury trial, the defendants sought to read portions of the plaintiff’s examination for discovery into evidence pursuant to Rule 31.11(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff objected, arguing that the rule in Browne v. Dunn required the defendants to first put the evidence to the plaintiff during cross‑examination at trial.

The court held that Rule 31.11 permits a party to read discovery evidence into the record as admissions provided it is not used for impeachment purposes.

Balancing fairness considerations and the trial context, including the presence of a jury, the court allowed the defendants to read in the proposed excerpts.

The court also indicated that the plaintiff could seek leave to provide reply evidence if the read‑ins raised issues that required a response.