Legal Opinion

Inmates of B-Block v. Marks

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 26, 1981No. 194 C.D. 1981PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Opinion,

Before us is the preliminary objection of the respondents, the public officials charged with operating the State Correctional Institute at Huntingdon (SCIH), to an action in mandamus filed by a number of inmates of SCIH (petitioners) to compel the respondents to provide the petitioners with at least two hours of daily exercise.

The petitioners aver that they receive only 10 minutes of exercise, three or four days a week, and that this violates Section 1 of the Act of June 14, 1923 (Act), P.L. 775, 61 P.S. §101, which provides :

Every warden, board of prison managers, prison inspectors,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Bryant v. HendrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  2. Robson v. BIESTERCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. In re Columbia BoroughCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. Scanlon v. Mount Union Area Board of School DirectorsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Delaware County v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Buehl v. BeardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  2. DeHart v. HornCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Inmates of B-Block v. JeffesCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  4. Logan v. PattonCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API