Legal Opinion
Kirby v. United States
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided January 11, 1979No. 3-78 Civ. 186PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ORDER
ALSOP, District Judge.
This case comes before the court on the petition of James W. Kirby for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The United States, by the United States Attorney, has responded to the petition, and petitioner has filed a traverse to the return. Being thus fully ad vised on the premises, the court concludes that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing in this matter, which is a challenge to the use and applicability of the guidelines promulgated by the Parole Commission to determine petitioner’s parole release date.
The facts…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Richard Charles Ruip v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1977
- Lyman T. Shepard v. Larry Taylor, Warden, Metropolitan Correctional Center, and Maurice Sigler, Chairman, United States Parole CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- Geraghty v. United States Parole CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- Robert D. Kortness v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1975
- Samuel K. Garafola v. Charles L. Benson, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1974
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Douglas Charles Dufresne v. Benjamin Baer, Chairman, U.S. Parole CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
- Albert E. Paschal v. Louie L. Wainwright, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
- Joost v. United States Parole CommissionDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1982
- Hayward v. U. S. Parole CommissionDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1980
- GAF Corp. v. Amchem Products, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981