Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cox v. Commonwealth, Board of Probation & Parole

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 4, 1985No. 19 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1984Published

1DissentPapadakos, Justice

I dissent. Despite any deficiencies there may have been in the record in this case, there is one point that is so obvious that even the Majority noticed it:1 Cox’s attend*622anee at Eagleville Hospital’s in-patient drug program was imposed as a special condition of his parole, in that failure to complete that program successfully would be a parole violation resulting in his return to prison. The Majority is of the belief that we must determine whether the restrictions on Cox’s freedom at Eagleville were the equivalent of incarceration. In support of this, the Majority cites Hines v. Pennsylvania…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Young v. Com. Bd. of Probation and ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Hines v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Commonwealth v. MallonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  5. Commonwealth v. UsherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

4 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