JONES, SUPERINTENDENT, GREAT MEADOW CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL.
v.
ARROYO
JONES, SUPERINTENDENT, GREAT MEADOW CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL.
ARROYO
459 U.S. 1048
Supreme Court of the United States (1982)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cody v. Solem, 755 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1985)…urts have refused such an extension, see, e.g., White v. Finkbeiner, 687 F. 2d 885, 888-94 (7th Cir. 1982) vacated on other grounds, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1433, 79 L.Ed.2d 756 (1984); Hinman v. McCarthy, 676 F. 2d 343, 348-49 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1048, 103 S.Ct. 468, 74 L.Ed.2d 617 (1982); Harryman v. Estelle, 616 F. 2d 870, 872 n. 3 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 860, 101 S.Ct. 161, 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980); Wilson v. Henderson, 584 F. 2d 1185, 1189 (2d Cir.1978) (dicta), cert. denied,…
-
Crump v. Lane, 807 F.2d 1394 (7th Cir. 1986)…t of the larger question of whether the parole statute creates the sort of “liberty or property” interest entitled to constitutional protection. In Scott v. Illinois Parole & Pardon Bd., 669 F. 2d 1185 (7th Cir.1982) (per curiam), certiorari denied, 459 U.S. 1048,103 S.Ct. 468, 74 L.Ed.2d 617 this Court held that the Illinois parole statute does create a legitimate expectation of release on parole and thus gives rise to a constitutionally protected liberty interest. The Court noted, however, that the Illinoi…