· 9/5/1995
State v. McJimpson
Citations
- 79 Wash. App. 164
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that an alien's due process rights were not infringed by allegedly constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because the relief sought was purely discretionary
- concluding that an alien's due process rights were not infringed by allegedly constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because the relief sought was purely discretionary
- concluding that an alien’s due process rights were not infringed by allegedly constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because the relief sought was purely discretionary
- holding that remedy of suspension of deportation does not create protected liberty interest
- holding that counsel’s ineffective assistance did not violate the petitioner’s due process rights because the petitioner did not have a liberty interest in receiving a discretionary grant of suspension of deportation
- “[W]here a statute or regulation does not limit the executive’s discretion to award relief, an expectancy of such relief does not give rise to a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Cox
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.