Legal Opinion

Semick v. Department of Corrections

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided May 18, 1984PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McNEILLY, Justice:

George, F. Semick, Jr. (Defendant) appeals from an Order of the Superior Court denying his petition for a Writ of Mandamus in regard to an action taken by the Delaware Board of Parole (Parole Board). At the outset, we note that Mandamus does not lie in this case due to the discretionary nature of the Parole Board’s action. Based upon the serious nature of the issues raised, however, we deem the case to be in this Court as though on a Writ of Certiorari. Therefore, we have jurisdiction to determine the issues presented. See generally, Shoemaker v. State, Del.Supr., 375 A.2d…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Moody v. DaggettSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Conner v. GriffithWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Shoemaker v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1977
  5. Charles Curtis Harris v. Irl Day, Warden United States Parole CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1981

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Hall v. CarrSupreme Court of Delaware · 1997
  2. Miles v. WilliamsDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2005
  3. Spencer v. Smyrna Board of EducationSuperior Court of Delaware · 1988
  4. Boone & Trevor v. Dept. of Health & Social ServicesSupreme Court of Delaware · 2016
  5. Cammile v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2015

5 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