Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Tindell v. Department of Corrections

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 24, 2014PublishedCited by 79 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

Senior Judge COLINS.

Archie Tindell and James Wright (Petitioners), pro se, have filed an amended petition for review in the nature of mandamus in our original jurisdiction naming as respondents the Department of Corrections (DOC), John Wetzel, Secretary of the DOC, and employees of the State Correctional Institution — Forest (SCI Forest) Superintendent Debra K. Sauers 1, Superintendent Daniel Burns2, Deputy Superintendent Eric Tice, and Deputy Superintendent Michael Overmyer (collectively Respondents). Before the Court are Respondents’ preliminary objections. Respondents object in…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Daniels v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Rhodes v. ChapmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1981

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by79 opinions

  1. Shore v. Pennsylvania Department of CorrectionsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  2. Paluch v. PA Department of CorrectionsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. R.C. Comrie v. PA DOC and PBPP, etc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  4. Richard Allen Prep. Charter School v. PA, Department of Education and Pedro A. Rivera, in his official capacity as Secretary of EducationCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  5. KIPP Philadelphia Charter Schools v. PA, Department of Education and Pedro A. Rivera, in his official capacity as Secretary of EducationCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API