Legal Opinion
Daniel v. Fulwood
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided September 30, 2011No. Civil Action No. 2010-0862PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RICARDO M. URBINA, District Judge.
Granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
I. INTRODUCTION
This motion comes before the court on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs are federal inmates who “were convicted of offenses against the District of Columbia that occurred on or before March 3,1985,” and the defendants are the Chairman and two Commissioners of the United States Parole Commission (“USPC”). The plaintiffs allege that, when determining whether the plaintiffs qualified for parole, the defendants violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution by…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erickson v. PardusSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kingsbury v. FulwoodDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Daniel v. FulwoodDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Daniel v. SmootCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Burrus v. Elevance Health, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2022
- Daniel v. FulwoodDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.