Meehan v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that pre-release inmates at an in-patient facility are “in custody,” unlike parolees, who are at liberty
• engaging in a fact-intensive determination whether restrictions imposed on a parolee residing at a private-sector drug and alcohol treatment facility as a condition of parole were so restrictive as to constitute incarceration
• rejecting a direct violator's claim that monitoring is the equivalent of incarceration
• affirming Board’s denial of credit when evidence showed that despite close monitoring, no one on staff could restrain a parolee if he attempted to walk out, and he would be treated as a parole violator

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).