Wilbur Richardson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Attorney General of Pennsylvania

How courts have described this case

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

• stating ways a prisoner might show that the 1996 amendments to the Parole Act, which subjected violent offenders to a more stringent standard of review, disadvantaged him
• distinguishing Mickens-Thomas as “an exceptional case” and rejecting ex post fac-to challenge where inmate failed to proffer “at least some evidence of disadvantage to warrant habeas relief’
• requiring a “significant” effect, rather than a “determinative” one

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).