HAGANS

v.

TEXAS

Citator

Cited By (45 total)

• Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1979)
  …Federal due process does not require that a parole revocation be predicated upon notice and opportunity to be heard.” See also Hyser v. Reed, 115 U. S. App. D. C. 254, 266, 318 F. 2d 225, 237 (1963), cert. denied sub nom. Jamison [*448] v. Chappell, 375 U. S. 957 (“In a real sense the Parole Board in revoking parole occupies the role of parent withdrawing a privilege from an errant child not as punishment but for misuse of the privilege”). “The question is not merely the ‘weight’ of the individual’s interes…
• Pickus v. United States Bd. OF Parole, 507 F.2d 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
  …ections 1622, 1884, 1891-1902, and former section 1641(b)(2), of title 50, appendix; . Revocation proceedings have often been held not subject to the Act, e. g., Hyser v. Reed, 1963, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 318 F. 2d 225, 237 (en banc), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 957, 84 S.Ct. 446, 11 L.Ed.2d 315, Hiatt v. Compagna, 5th Cir. 1949, 178 F. 2d 42, aff’d by an equally divided court, 1950, 340 U.S. 880, 71 S.Ct. 192, 95 L.Ed. 639, but whether the Board was an agency was not at issue. In Hurley v. Reed, supra, 110 U.…
• James v. Earl, 361 F.2d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
  …le, for a Parole Board is not limited to convictions but to conduct generally. See generally Hyser v. Reed, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 263-264, 318 F. 2d 225, 234-235, cert. denied sub noms. Thompson v. United States Board of Parole, Jamison v. Chappell, 375 U.S. 957, 84 S.Ct. 446, 11 L.Ed.2d 315 (1963). In this context we are unable to consider judicial power as broad enough to accomplish this end assuming arguendo it is a desirable end. Appellant’s contentions must be addressed to Congress. Affirmed. . We m…