AKERS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (34 total)

• Rewolinski v. Fisher, 444 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
  …precise compliance with the labor organization’s constitutional procedures is not necessarily required as long as there is substantial compliance consistent with the purpose of the LMRDA. Jolly v. Gorman, 428 F. 2d 960 (5th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1023, 91 S.Ct. 588, 27 [*60] L.Ed.2d 635 (1971). In addition, mere ritual invocation of the term “bad faith” is not sufficient to trigger judicial intervention. The standard enunciated by the LMRDA, paralleling that applied by Florida courts in similar…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Billiteri v. United States Bd. OF Parole & Members of the United States Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 938 (2d Cir. 1976)
  …d to be fully advised of the contents of the presentence report and to use it in giving an offense severity rating and for such other purposes that it finds necessary and proper. Menechino v. Oswald, 430 F. 2d 403, 407-8 (2 Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1023, 91 S.Ct. 588, 27 L.Ed.2d 635 (1971); Scarpa v. United States Board of Parole, 477 F. 2d 278, 281 (5 Cir. 1973). The district court in the present case has taken the position that the Regional Board was in error in considering the presentence repor…
• Williams v. Ward, 556 F.2d 1143 (2d Cir. 1977)
  …dy to determine whether parole has been denied for an impermissible reason or for no reason at all.” 500 F. 2d at 934. Johnson expressed no difference with this Circuit’s earlier conclusion in Menechino v. Oswald, 430 F. 2d 403 (1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1023, 91 S.Ct. 588, 27 L.Ed.2d 635 (1971), that “an inmate being considered for parole was not entitled to the full panoply of due process rights, including a specification of charges, counsel, and cross-examination”, which would change the nature of par…