Legal Opinion
Michael Ellis, Appellees/cross-Appellants v. District of Columbia, Appellants/cross-Appellees
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided May 28, 1996No. 95-7090, 95-7109PublishedCited by 111 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH.
Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge TATEL.
RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge:
In this class action by prisoners and former prisoners of the District of Columbia, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district *1415court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment required the District of Columbia Board of Parole to hold parole hearings far enough in advance of prisoners’ parole eligibility dates so that prisoners may be released on that date if the Board’s decisions are in favor of parole; to provide certain…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Rizzo v. GoodeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by111 opinions
- Armstrong v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Blair-Bey v. QuickCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998
- Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, Appellants/cross-Appellees, Nathaniel McQueen Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
- Carl D. McQuillion v. William Duncan, Warden Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Jeffrey J. Biggs v. Cal A. Terhune, Director of Wbs/jfm CDC California Board of Prison Terms Board of Prison TermsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
106 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.