Legal Opinion
Rogers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided January 22, 1999No. 0008, 0009, 0010 M.D. Appeal Dkt. 1997PublishedCited by 122 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
CASTILLE, Justice.
This Court granted allocatur to determine whether a decision by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (hereinafter “Parole Board”) to deny an application for parole upon expiration of an inmate’s minimum sentence and thereafter is uniquely one of administrative discretion and, as such, is not subject to judicial review.
Nathaniel Rogers, Christopher Reed, and Michael Meehan (“appellants”) appeal from the Orders of the Commonwealth Court dismissing their respective Petitions for Review following the Parole Board’s decision to deny parole1 after…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Collins v. City of Harker HeightsSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Bronson v. Commonwealth Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Commonwealth ex rel. Rambeau v. RundleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Reider v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by122 opinions
- 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
- Robert Defoy v. John M. McCullough Superintendent: Gerald J. Pappert, Att. General: Pennsylvania Board of Probation and ParoleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- Newman v. BeardCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- Coady v. VaughnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
117 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.