Reo v. Sigler, 567 F.2d 1212 (2d Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Reo v. Sigler, 567 F.2d 1212 (2d Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Abbey v. Control Data Corp., 603 F.2d 724 (8th Cir. 1979)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1212 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Untermeyer v. Fid. Daily Income Trust, 79 F.R.D. 36 (D. Mass. 1978).published
    The opinion does not address the requirement of demand on the board of directors, and comments that Rule 23.1 cases are inapposite. 567 F.2d at 1212.
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Patrick Vincent Reo
v.
Maurice H. Sigler, Chairman, United States Parole Board, and George C. Wilkinson, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury, Connecticut
127.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jan 12, 1978.
Published opinion
567 F.2d 1212
1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 13073
Published

567 F.2d 1212

Patrick Vincent REO, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Maurice H. SIGLER, Chairman, United States Parole Board, and
George C. Wilkinson, Warden, Federal Correctional
Institution, Danbury, Connecticut,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 127, Docket 76-2118.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Sept. 16, 1977.
Decided Jan. 12, 1978.

F. Timothy McNamara, Hartford, Conn., for petitioner-appellant.

Raymond L. Sweigart, Asst. U. S. Atty., District of Connecticut, New Haven, Conn. (Richard Blumenthal, U. S. Atty., District of Connecticut, and Peter J. Ponziani, Law Student Intern, New Haven, Conn., of counsel), for respondents-appellees.

Before GURFEIN and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges, and COFFRIN, District Judge.[*]

PER CURIAM:

[*~1212–1213]1

We have had difficulty in reaching a consensus on the following issue: whether the failure to notify a federal prisoner of the reasons why the Regional Director seeks to annul a favorable parole decision of a local panel is a denial of due process when the central assumption would involve a disputed question of fact on which the prisoner could not be heard until after the review by the National Directors is made and its decision rendered.

2

In the meantime, the local panel has again held that the appellant should be released, and this time there has been no appeal from its recommendation. Since the matter has become moot, we dismiss the appeal. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) (per curiam ); Holup v. Gates, 544 F.2d 82, 84 (2d Cir. 1976).

*

Honorable Albert W. Coffrin, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation