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.
8 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1976–1982 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
People ex rel. Walsh v. Vincentgreen2 sentences1979Walsh v Vincent ( 40 NY2d 1049 ), cited by appellant, recognized the logical and necessary requirement that before a parolee may invoke his legal right to a prompt parole revocation hearing, he must be " 'subject to the convenience and practical control of the Parole Board’ ” (People ex rel. 1978Walsh v Vincent ( 40 NY2d 1049 ), requiring a prompt final revocation hearing even though the violation of parole may have involved the commission of another crime, is controlling in New York State, rather than Moody v Daggett ( 429 US 78 ), and that the failure to conduct a prompt parole revocation hearing will lead to a restoration of parole. | 1 | 4 |
Zobrist v. Smithgreen1 sentence1979Walsh v Vincent, supra, p 1050, citing Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole, 39 NY2d 445, 447 ; see Matter of Zobrist v Smith, 54 AD2d 1071 , app dsmd 42 NY2d 1012 ). | 1 | 1 |
Zobrist v. Smithgreen1 sentence1979Walsh v Vincent, supra, p 1050, citing Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole, 39 NY2d 445, 447 ; see Matter of Zobrist v Smith, 54 AD2d 1071 , app dsmd 42 NY2d 1012 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moody v. Daggett
green
2 sentences1982Gonzales v Dalsheim ( 52 NY2d 9, 14 ), as follows: “We declined to follow the rule announced in Moody v Daggett ( 429 US 78 ) that a Federal parolee convicted of a Federal offense committed while on parole is not entitled to a prompt parole revocation hearing until he has been taken into custody as a parole violator at the expiration of the intervening sentence.” We next find that this court, on its own motion, on January 31, 1977, in People ex rel. 1980We wrote in that case, “In the absence of a showing by the correctional or parole authorities that a particular local facility in the State is, for strong practical reasons, beyond its convenience and control, a situation difficult to bring to mind, a parolee is entitled to a prompt final parole revocation hearing” (id.). 1 We declined to follow the rule announced in Moody v Daggett ( 429 US 78 ) that a Federal parolee convicted of a Federal offense committed while on parole is not entitled to a prompt parole revocation hearing until he has been taken into custody as a parole violator at the e | 3 | 1978–1982 |
People ex rel. Royster v. Bombard
neutral
1 sentence1982Royster v Bombard ( 55 AD2d 940 ), People ex rel. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People ex rel. Gonzales v. Dalsheim
green
1 sentence1982Gonzales v Dalsheim ( 52 NY2d 9, 14 ), as follows: “We declined to follow the rule announced in Moody v Daggett ( 429 US 78 ) that a Federal parolee convicted of a Federal offense committed while on parole is not entitled to a prompt parole revocation hearing until he has been taken into custody as a parole violator at the expiration of the intervening sentence.” We next find that this court, on its own motion, on January 31, 1977, in People ex rel. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Good v. Hammock
neutral
1 sentence1979Walsh v Vincent, 40 NY2d 1049 ; Matter of Good v Hammock, 64 AD2d 1011 ; People ex rel. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Beattie v. New York State Board
green
1 sentence1979Walsh v Vincent, supra, p 1050, citing Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole, 39 NY2d 445, 447 ; see Matter of Zobrist v Smith, 54 AD2d 1071 , app dsmd 42 NY2d 1012 ). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People Ex Rel. Schmidt v. La Vallee
neutral
1 sentence1978Schmidt v La Vallee ( 39 NY2d 886 ), on the ground that the parole eligibility hearing afforded to petitioner herein rendered the issue of the denial of a prompt parole revocation hearing academic. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Grix v. Regan
neutral
1 sentence1977Walsh v Vincent, 40 NY2d 1049 ; Matter of Grix v Regan, 57 AD2d 710 ; People ex rel. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Claim of Mullins v. State Board of Parole
neutral
1 sentence1976We have held that a prompt parole revocation hearing is not mandated where the parolee is already serving a sentence of imprisonment on a conviction for a new offense (Sims v Preiser, 50 AD2d 983 , mot for lv den 39 NY2d 707 ; Matter of Mullins v State Bd. of Parole, 43 AD2d 382 , app dsmd as moot 35 NY2d 992 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Claim of Mullins v. State Board of Parole
green
1 sentence1976We have held that a prompt parole revocation hearing is not mandated where the parolee is already serving a sentence of imprisonment on a conviction for a new offense (Sims v Preiser, 50 AD2d 983 , mot for lv den 39 NY2d 707 ; Matter of Mullins v State Bd. of Parole, 43 AD2d 382 , app dsmd as moot 35 NY2d 992 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Sims v. Preiser
neutral
1 sentence1976We have held that a prompt parole revocation hearing is not mandated where the parolee is already serving a sentence of imprisonment on a conviction for a new offense (Sims v Preiser, 50 AD2d 983 , mot for lv den 39 NY2d 707 ; Matter of Mullins v State Bd. of Parole, 43 AD2d 382 , app dsmd as moot 35 NY2d 992 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.