Skip to main content
Ninth Circuit· 4/29/2010

Moor v. Palmer

Citations

  • 603 F.3d 658
  • 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 8889
  • 2010 WL 1712489

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the revocation of parole “is not the type of criminal punishment that would trigger the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause”
  • observing that the risk of prolonging incarceration was less likely where the inmate had previously violated his parole
  • rejecting ex post facto challenge to NRS 213.1214, adopted after the inmate's conviction, because the statute did not pose a significant risk of extended incarceration
  • “Nevada’s statutory parole scheme ... expressly disclaims any intent to create a liberty interest.”
  • “Nevada’s statutory parole scheme ... expressly disclaims any intent to create a liberty interest.”
  • “Nevada prisoners do not have a liberty interest 16 in parole.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wallace, Hug, Clifton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Moor v. Palmer

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.