Legal Opinion
Mickens-Thomas v. Vaughn
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided February 21, 2003No. 02-2047, 02-2213PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
ROSENN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal has its genesis in the material modification of parole laws by the Pennsylvania legislature in 1996 and corresponding changes in the parole decision-making policies of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (“Board”). 1 As a consequence, the post-1996 parole regime ■placed primary consideration on the risk to public safety by the parole petitioner as the dominant factor in evaluating parole applications. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the Board retroactively applied this policy…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- California Department of Corrections v. MoralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Lynce v. MathisSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Joseph Coady v. Donald T. Vaughn the District Attorney of the County of Montgomery the Attorney General of the State of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Garner v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Joseph P. Dyer III v. James Bowlen, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- Shawn Parker v. Donald Kelchner, Superintendent Attorney General of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- Hall v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Gibbs v. FrankCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Wilbur Richardson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Attorney General of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.