Carl D. McQuillion v. William Duncan, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Sandin was not applicable to the parole system at issue, but opining that Sandin “abandoned” the mandatory language framework
• explaining that the mandatory language “test for the existence of state-created liberty interests ... has been abandoned by the Supreme Court” in Sandin
• finding that petitioner was entitled to relief where none of the four grounds for reeision of petitioner’s parole release date was supported by “some evidence,” and therefore the decision violated due process
• recognizing a California state prisoner serving a life sentence has a cognizable liberty interest in release on parole, based on the court’s determination California’s parole scheme closely resembles those interpreted in Greenholtz and Allen
• finding that California’s parole 22 scheme creates a protected interest in parole for California prisoners and that interest was “heightened” and “created a specific expectation” for a prisoner “who had already been granted 23 a parole date”
• noting that Sandin “abandon[ed] the ‘mandatory language’ framework”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).