Jerry Montgomery v. Rondle Anderson, Warden, Indiana State Prison

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that parole system making release entirely discretionary “means that the setting of a parole‐release date does not entail ‘liberty’ or ‘property’”
• explaining that prisoners do not have liberty or property interests in a parole system that is entirely discretionary
• complaining of the use of a “period” in place of a “dash” in a statute number was a “niggling objection” because no one was mislead
• finding harmless error where the Conduct Report listed the wrong statute because the Court was assured that the defect was not misleading
• noting Wolff procedures are not necessarily required in circumstances where “the stakes and correspondingly the required procedures are diminished.”
• affirming a disciplinary conviction despite a defect in the Conduct Report and explaining that if the petitioner was confused, he could have asked for clarification of the charges, but he did not

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).