Legal Opinion
Murray v. Stempson
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 10, 1993No. 91-SP-1479PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KING, Associate Judge:
In this appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he claimed that he has not received the good time credits he is entitled to receive under the District of Columbia Good Time Credits Act of 1986 (“Good Time Credits Act” ).1 The trial court denied the petition, without a hearing, ruling that habeas corpus relief was not appropriate because appellant had not exhausted the administrative remedies available to an inmate within the Department of Corrections (“Department”). Although both appellant and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Peyton v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Shaughnessy v. PedreiroSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Simpson v. District of Columbia Office of Human RightsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Smith v. Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- Norris v. FreemanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
3Cited by4 opinions
- Walton v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- Stevens v. QuickDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- Harris v. R. M. WolfeDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 2023
- Walton v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996