Rose v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the Board is required to provide a written explanation of its parole decision that is sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review
• explaining that even where there is conflicting evidence, so long as evidence exists to support a fact, “the Board [does] not abuse its discretion by granting parole based on that evidence”
• relying on Maldonado to adopt the Babcock standard in the context of review of parole-board decisions
• reversing the trial court’s determination that the Board abused its discretion in granting the prisoner’s parole where the potential parolee had 35 major misconducts on her record, but none in the five years preceding the parole decision
• “The circuit court substituted its judgment regarding the record evidence for that of the legislatively designated executive agency.”
• “The Legislature recognized . . . that in some circumstances the parole guidelines fail to take into account adequate information.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).