Legal Opinion
Reynolds v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided October 21, 2002PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
Dwayne Reynolds (Reynolds) has filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus in our original jurisdiction against the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board) contending that the Board’s application of a certain amendment to the Probation and Parole Act (Parole Act) 1 and changes to the Board’s guidelines unconstitutionally violated the ere post facto clause of Article I, Section 10[1] of the United States Constitution 2 forbidding the states from passing any ex post facto law. After filing an answer to Reynolds’ petition, the Board has filed an…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- California Department of Corrections v. MoralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Lynce v. MathisSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Garner v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Coady v. VaughnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Salerno v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hall v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- McGarry v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Hall v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Winklespecht v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Winklespecht v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002