Woods v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• “The Board has no responsibility to or for a parole violator until it has jurisdiction over him.”
• “It is true that county-confined parolees who do not give up their right to a Full Board revocation hearing must often wait longer: this is so because the 120-day period does not commence during county confinement, but begins later[.]”
• “It is true that county-confined parolees who do not give up their right to a Full Board revocation hearing must often wait longer: this is so because the 120-day period does not commence during county confinement, but begins later[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Cromartie v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-07-01· cited 11×
• Osborne Johnson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-03-17· cited 7×
• Cordell v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 2012-04-24

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth ex rel. Rambeau v. Rundle
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1973-03-16· cited 149×
• Commonwealth v. Tinson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1969-01-15· cited 69×
• Passaro v. Commonwealth
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-01-09· cited 29×
• Brown v. Commonwealth
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-12-29· cited 16×