Legal Opinion
In Re Capistran
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 21, 2003No. B159449PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PERREN, J.
In In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 676-677 [128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104, 59 P.3d 174], our Supreme Court held that the Governor’s decision to deny parole will not be disturbed if supported by “some evidence.” But, in reaching that conclusion a reviewing court must also be satisfied that the Governor’s decision was based on the same factors “which the parole authority is required to consider.” (Cal. Const., art. V, § 8, subd. (b) (hereafter Article V, section 8(b).) Here we conclude that the report of the Governor required by Article V, section 8(b) was, in part, based upon…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- In Re RosenkrantzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
3Cited by14 opinions
- Miller v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- McQuillion v. SchwarzeneggerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- McQUILLION v. SCHWARZENEGGERCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- In Re SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- In Re MarquezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.