Legal Opinion
Bollinger v. Oregon
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 28, 2006No. 05-35335PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM *
Plaintiff Edward Bollinger (“Bollinger”) brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that defendants violated his con*771stitutional rights by releasing him on parole, over his objections, for the purpose of imposing post-prison supervision. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment because several individual defendants were not involved in the parole decision, and the remaining defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Bollinger appeals, contending that the district court erred in its decision on qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lindh v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Patrick James Jeffries v. Tana Wood, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Pubali Bank v. City National BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Bollinger v. Oregon State Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
3Cited by8 opinions
- United States v. WallaceCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2009
- HealthSouth Corp. v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Darold Maxfield v. Cintas Corporation, No. 2Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2007
- Darold Maxfield v. Cintas Corporation, No. 2Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2007
- Leibel v. Buckeye, City ofDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2021
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.