Citation network
Jago Vs. Van Curen
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 09, 1981
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Jago v. VanSearch
-
Curen - 454 U.S. 14 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Jago v. VanSearch
-
Curen, 454 U.S. 14 (1981) Jago v. VanSearch
-
language of Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
interests such as that asserted by respondent. Cf. Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSearch
-
could not be commanded to recall its decision rescinding Page 454 U. S. 16 parole. State ex rel. Van Curen v. OhioSearch
-
denied the writ, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summarily affirmed the denial. Van Curen v. JagoSearch
-
the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded for further consideration in light of our decision in Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1 (1979). Jago v. VanSearch
-
the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the District Court. Relying upon language from our decision in Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
has been limited to the creation of property interests is illustrated by Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
the existence of constitutionally protected liberty interests in the setting of prisoner parole. In Meachum v. FanoSearch
-
retains a variety of Page 454 U. S. 19 important rights that the courts must be alert to protect. See Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
could give rise to a liberty interest in the prisoner parole setting. The prisoners in Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSearch
-
In State e rel. Newman v. LowerySearch
-
interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. We think that the reasoning of Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
JUSTICE STEVENS' dissenting opinion appears to follow from his dissenting view in Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
MARSHALL, J., joined by BRENNAN and STEVENS, JJ., dissenting in part), and Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSearch
-
U.S. at 452 U. S. 468 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). It is understandable that the distinction between Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
U. S. 471 (1972), which involved return to custody after parole release, and Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
Penal Inmates, supra, and Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSearch
-
Petitioners contend that this case is moot under Weinstein v. BradfordSearch
-
U.S. at 148 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Jones v. CunninghamSearch
-
Brief in Opposition 7. In Vitek v. JonesSearch
-
U. S. 407 (1978), and Scott v. KentuckySearch
-
yet prepared to say so, and I certainly am not prepared to say so on a summary reversal. Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSearch
-
U. S. 458 (1981), does not stand for so broad a proposition, and Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
mootness question by adopting the reasoning that persuaded JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE POWELL, and me to dissent in Scott v. KentuckySearch
-
Vitek v. JonesSearch
-
and the decision to grant or to deny parole. Arbitrary revocation is prohibited by Page 454 U. S. 24 Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
U. S. 471 , whereas arbitrary denial is permitted by Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
Cf. Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSearch
-
See Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
id. at 442 U. S. 25 -29 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting in part). See also Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSearch
-
do we base our decision on the evidence that less than one percent of Ohio's parole grants are rescinded. Cf. Dumschat v. BoardSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Jago v. VanSearch
-
of Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
Van Curen v. OhioSearch
-
Van Curen v. JagoSearch
-
Greenholtz v. NebraskaSearch
-
Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
In Meachum v. FanoSearch
-
See Wolff v. McDonnellSearch
-
Connecticut Board of Pardons v. DumschatSearch
-
Newman v. LowerySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial