Stefanik v. State Board of Parole (1977)

green · 12 citation events across 3 courts. Showing the 9 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 9

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Doucette v. Massachusetts Parole Board (2014)

Rule Authority · Mass. App. Ct.

See 120 Code Mass. Regs. § 303.13 (1997); Stefanik v. Board of Parole, 372 Mass. 726, 728-729 (1977).

green Commonwealth v. Joyner (2014)

Quote Authority · Mass. · signal: see

See Stefanik v. State Bd. of Parole, 372 Mass. 726, 735 (1977) (“One may agree that two different hearings might present different strategic choices and opportunities, without agreeing that this full range of litigation strategies is a constitutional requirement”).

“One may agree that two different hearings might present different strategic choices and opportunities, without agreeing that this full range of litigation strategies is a constitutional requirement”

green Commonwealth v. Toland (2000)

Rule Authority · Mass. Super. Ct.

See also Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 393 Mass. 523, 534 (1984) (purpose of probable cause hearing is to screen out cases that should not go to trial); Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 375 Mass. 104, 106 (1978) (same); Burke v. Commonwealth, 373 Mass. 157, 159 (1977); Stefanik v. State Bd. of Parole, 372 Mass. 726, 731 (1977) (same).

same

green Smith v. State Parole Board (1983)

Rule Authority · Mass. App. Ct. · signal: cf.

“With only a prospect of future incarceration which is far from certain, we cannot say that the parole violator warrant has any present or inevitable effect upon the liberty interests which Morrissey sought to protect.” Id. at 87. 13 Moody is correctly taken to announce a general rule that “there is no constitutional right to a prompt parole revocation hearing when the parolee is serving an independent intervening sentence in the same jurisdiction.” Hopper v. United States P…

green Commonwealth v. Look (1980)

Rule Authority · Mass.

Stefanik v. State Bd. of Parole, 372 Mass. 726, 731 (1977).

green Fay v. Commonwealth (1980)

Rule Authority · Mass. · signal: cf.

Cf. Stefanik v. State Bd. of Parole, 372 Mass. 726, 730-731 (1977).

green Doe v. Massachusetts Parole Board (2012)

Cited · Mass. App. Ct. · signal: see

See Stefanik v. State Bd. of Parole, 372 Mass. 726 (1977) (setting forth due process requirements for parole revocation post-Morrissey); Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 116-119 (1990) (same, probation); Commonwealth v. Al Saud, 459 Mass. 221, 232 (2011) (discussing due process and impact of absence of notice in probation revocation proceeding).

setting forth due process requirements for parole revocation post-Morrissey

green Commonwealth v. Morse (2000)

Cited · Mass. App. Ct. · signal: see

See Stefanik, 372 Mass. at 730-732 (defendant had received a bind-over probable cause hearing in the District Court).

defendant had received a bind-over probable cause hearing in the District Court

green Lynch (1979)

Cited · Mass. App. Ct. · signal: see

See Stefanik v. State Bd. of Parole, 372 Mass. 726 (1977).