Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
38 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2025 13 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Krantz v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2025Id. “‘[B]acktime’ is . . . part of an existing judicially-imposed sentence which the Board directs a parolee to complete following a finding after a civil administrative hearing that the parolee violated the terms and conditions of parole, which time must be served before the parolee may again be eligible to be considered for a grant of parole.” Torres v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 765 A.2d 418, 423 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). “‘[W]hen the Board imposes backtime, it is establishing a new parole eligibility date for the parolee, in effect, a recomputed minimum term.’” Bowman v. Pennsyl 2025Id. “‘[B]acktime’ is . . . part of an existing judicially-imposed sentence which the Board directs a parolee to complete following a finding after a civil administrative hearing that the parolee violated the terms and conditions of parole, which time must be served before the parolee may again be eligible to be considered for a grant of parole.” Torres v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 765 A.2d 418, 423 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). “‘[W]hen the Board imposes backtime, it is establishing a new parole eligibility date for the parolee, in effect, a recomputed minimum term.’” Bowman v. Pennsyl | 20 | 22 |
Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2024Douglas filed an administrative remedies form 1 “[B]acktime is that part of an existing judicially[]imposed sentence which the Board directs a parolee to complete following a finding, after a civil administrative hearing, that the parolee violated the terms and conditions of parole . . . .” Martin v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 840 A.2d 299, 303 (Pa. 2003) (citation, quotation marks and brackets omitted). 2 challenging the Board’s decision, asserting that the Keystone staff “violated [his] First Amendment rights to freely express [him]self” and “wrongfully discharged [him] and, further, that th 2022See Martin v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 840 A.2d 299, 303 (Pa. 2003) (Backtime is “that part of an existing judicially-imposed sentence which the [Parole] Board directs a parolee to complete following a finding, after a civil administrative hearing, that the parolee violated the terms and conditions of parole.”) (citation, original brackets, and quotations omitted; emphasis in original). | 8 | 12 |
Hughes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parolegreen2 sentences2025Hughes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 179 A.3d 117, 122 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). 3 I expressly waive extradition to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from any jurisdiction in or outside of the United States, where I may be found, and I shall not contest any effort by any jurisdiction to return me to the United States or to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and I expressly consent to the search of my person, property and residence, without a warrant by agents of the [] Board. . . . 2019Hughes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 179 A.3d 117, 122 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (emphasis added). 3 This Court recognizes that in Wagner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 846 A.2d 187 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), the Court limited McMillian’s holding to prisoners in pre-release status and, thus, under the prison authorities’ control, as opposed to parolees who are under the Board’s supervision. 5 facility’s characteristics are equivalent to incarceration. | 3 | 3 |
Johnson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parolegreen1 sentence2025However, an inmate “has no right to be automatically released on parole upon the expiration of the backtime mandated by the Board.” Johnson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 532 A.2d 50, 53 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Torres v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2025Id. “‘[B]acktime’ is . . . part of an existing judicially-imposed sentence which the Board directs a parolee to complete following a finding after a civil administrative hearing that the parolee violated the terms and conditions of parole, which time must be served before the parolee may again be eligible to be considered for a grant of parole.” Torres v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 765 A.2d 418, 423 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). “‘[W]hen the Board imposes backtime, it is establishing a new parole eligibility date for the parolee, in effect, a recomputed minimum term.’” Bowman v. Pennsyl | 1 | 1 |
Bowman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2025Id. “‘[B]acktime’ is . . . part of an existing judicially-imposed sentence which the Board directs a parolee to complete following a finding after a civil administrative hearing that the parolee violated the terms and conditions of parole, which time must be served before the parolee may again be eligible to be considered for a grant of parole.” Torres v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 765 A.2d 418, 423 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). “‘[W]hen the Board imposes backtime, it is establishing a new parole eligibility date for the parolee, in effect, a recomputed minimum term.’” Bowman v. Pennsyl | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Com. Bd. of Probation and Parolegreen1 sentence2017Krantz, 483 A.2d at 1047 (citations omitted.) Our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has made clear that the Board’s authority to recalculate the sentence of a convicted parole violator “is not an encroachment upon the judicial sentencing power.” Young v. Commonwealth Board of Probation and Parole, 409 A.2d 843, 847 (Pa. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2003Krantz v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 86 Pa.Cmwlth. 38 , 483 A.2d 1044, 1047 (1984); see also McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 450 , 631 A.2d 1092 (1993), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 537 Pa. 655 , 644 A.2d 739 (1994). 2003Krantz v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 86 Pa.Cmwlth. 38 , 483 A.2d 1044, 1047 (1984); see also McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 450 , 631 A.2d 1092 (1993), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 537 Pa. 655 , 644 A.2d 739 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
McClure v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences1984Cf. McClure v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 75 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 179 , 461 A.2d 645, 646 (1983). 1984Cf. McClure v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 75 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 179 , 461 A.2d 645, 646 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kleschick v. Civil Service Commission
neutral
2 sentences1986Second, Appellant contends that the evidence presented to the School Directors was insufficient to support the actions of suspension without pay and termination under the School Code. 2 The legal issue presented by Appellant in this case is whether the exclusionary rule enunciated in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), should be applied to a civil administrative hearing relating to the suspension or discharge of a public school employee. 3 This *417 Court has examined a similar issue in Kleschick v. Civil Service Commission, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 125 , 365 A.2d 700 (1976), where we held that 1986Second, Appellant contends that the evidence presented to the School Directors was insufficient to support the actions of suspension without pay and termination under the School Code. 2 The legal issue presented by Appellant in this case is whether the exclusionary rule enunciated in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), should be applied to a civil administrative hearing relating to the suspension or discharge of a public school employee. 3 This *417 Court has examined a similar issue in Kleschick v. Civil Service Commission, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 125 , 365 A.2d 700 (1976), where we held that | 2 | 1986–1990 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1990In DeShields, we stated: The legal issue presented by Appellant in this case is whether the exclusionary rule enunciated in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 [, 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 ] (1961), should be applied to a civil administrative hearing relating to the suspension or discharge of a public school employee. 1990In DeShields, we stated: The legal issue presented by Appellant in this case is whether the exclusionary rule enunciated in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 [, 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 ] (1961), should be applied to a civil administrative hearing relating to the suspension or discharge of a public school employee. | 2 | 1986–1990 |
Rogers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2025Id. “‘[B]acktime’ is . . . part of an existing judicially-imposed sentence which the Board directs a parolee to complete following a finding after a civil administrative hearing that the parolee violated the terms and conditions of parole, which time must be served before the parolee may again be eligible to be considered for a grant of parole.” Torres v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 765 A.2d 418, 423 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). “‘[W]hen the Board imposes backtime, it is establishing a new parole eligibility date for the parolee, in effect, a recomputed minimum term.’” Bowman v. Pennsyl | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2024Paragraph 2.1 of Section 6138(a) sets forth that the Board “may, in its discretion, award credit to an offender recommitted under paragraph (2) for the time spent at liberty on parole.” Id. § 6138(a)(2.1).4 In Pittman, our Supreme Court held that when the Board exercises its discretion under Section 6138(a)(2.1) of the Parole Code, “the Board must articulate the basis for its decision to grant or deny a CPV credit for time served at liberty on parole.” 159 A.3d at 474 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rivenbark v. COM. PA. BD. OF PROB. & P.
green
1 sentence2023While a trial court’s sentence is “the judgment formally pronounced by the court upon a defendant who has been convicted in a new criminal prosecution and which imposes the term of punishment to be served,” Rivenbark v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 501 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 1985), the term backtime refers to “that part of an existing judicially[ ]imposed sentence which the [Parole] Board directs a parolee to complete 6 following a finding[,] after a civil administrative hearing[,] that the parolee violated the terms and conditions of parole,” and before the parolee begins to serve a new | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Wagner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2019Hughes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 179 A.3d 117, 122 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (emphasis added). 3 This Court recognizes that in Wagner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 846 A.2d 187 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), the Court limited McMillian’s holding to prisoners in pre-release status and, thus, under the prison authorities’ control, as opposed to parolees who are under the Board’s supervision. 5 facility’s characteristics are equivalent to incarceration. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.