Legal Opinion
In Re Roark
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 10, 1996No. G017444PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WALLIN, J.
Alan Frank Roark and his attorney, Charles L. Lindner, 1 petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, contending Roark had been unlawfully deprived of a contact visit with Lindner due to the Department of Corrections’ improper requirement that Lindner remove and possibly disassemble his artificial leg as a condition for the visit. This court denied the petition, 2 and Roark sought review in the Supreme Court. By order of the Supreme Court, we issued an order to show cause, returnable before the Superior Court for Imperial County. That court granted the petition, and ordered the…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Kentucky Department of Corrections v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Pell v. ProcunierSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Joseph Toussaint, Plaintiffs/appellees/cross-Appellants v. Daniel McCarthy Defendants/appellants/cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Fletcher Casey, Jr., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Samuel A. Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Thompson v. Department of CorrectionsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- Gerber v. HickmanDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2000
- County of Nevada v. Superior Court of Nevada CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- County of Nevada v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2015