Legal Opinion

Stodghill v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 23, 2016No. 363 M.D. 2015PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

JUDGE COVEY1

David Manning Stodghill (Stodghill), pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus (Petition), wherein he asks this Court to order the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department) to interpret Section 9718.1(b) of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718.1(b), to require participation in, rather than completion of, the Department’s sex offender treatment program to render an inmate eligible for parole consideration. In response, the Department filed preliminary objections to Stodghill’s Petition seeking to dismiss the Petition under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. City of Philadelphia v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Werner v. ZazycznySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Weaver v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Clark v. BeardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. O'Toole v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  2. A. Merretazon & J. Abram v. City Council of PhiladelphiaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  3. J. LoDuca v. Pa. D.O.C. & Probation and ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2024
  4. J.P. Kollock, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Bruce R. Beemer, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  5. K. Evans v. PA DOCCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2022

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API