Legal Opinion
Harris v. Horn
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided March 2, 2000No. 445 M.D. 1999PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRIEDMAN, Judge.
The Department of Corrections (Department) preliminarily objects to the petition for review of Lamont Harris (Petitioner) on the grounds that (1) Petitioner has failed to properly serve the Department and (2) Petitioner’s complaint fails to state a cause of action.
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. He filed a pro se petition for review (Petition) alleging that, since being placed in punitive segregation, he “has been forced to live in constant illumination 24 hours a day.” (Petition at 2.) Petitioner also alleges that, as a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Charles M. KEENAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank HALL, Director Oregon Department of Corrections, Et Al., Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Samuel Lemaire v. Manfred Maass, Superintendent, Samuel Lemaire v. Manfred Maass, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Charles M. Keenan v. Frank Hall, Director Oregon Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Envirotest Partners v. Commonwealth, Department of TransportationCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Hutchings v. CorumDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1980
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Dorfman v. Pennsylvania Social Services Union-Local 668 of the Service Employees International UnionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Lopez v. Pa. Department of CorrectionsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Dorfman v. Pennsylvania Social Services Union-Local 668 of the Service Employees International UnionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Harding v. StickmanCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Harding v. StickmanCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003