Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Fourth Circuit· 8/19/2009

Townes v. Jarvis

Citations

  • 577 F.3d 543
  • 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16244
  • 2009 WL 2525553

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a live Article III controversy remains unless we “‘know[]’ that [the] agency will not grant” him the relief he seeks (quoting FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 25 (1998)). Should we grant the relief sought here (vacatur and remand
  • finding that although a habeas petitioner was released on parole, his § 2254 petition was not moot in part because the challenged parole ineligibility finding could still affect the length of his parole
  • finding no equal protection violation where the plaintiff “allege[d] no facts that, if proved, would demonstrate that the Board intentionally discriminated against him”
  • finding no equal protection violation where the Plaintiff “allege[d] no facts that, if proved, would demonstrate that the Board intentionally discriminated against him”
  • allowing black habeas petitioner to rely on Jacksonville for standing because he alleged that white inmate had been treated differently
  • noting “[i]t is not entirely clear whether a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254” “provide[s] an avenue for” “challenges to state parole ineligibility determinations”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Motz, Gregory, Shedd

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

Other cases named Townes v. Jarvis

1 other CourtListener record shares 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.