Jones v. Welch
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
The District Court denied appellant’s petition for habeas corpus. The allegations of the petition related to the manner in which the Parole Board arrived at its decision not to admit appellant to parole. “Eligibility to parole * * * cannot be tried in habeas corpus.” Pope v. Huff, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 18, 19 , 141 F.2d 727, 728 . McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131 , 55 S.Ct. 24 , 79 L.Ed. 238 ; Goldsmith v. Aderholt, 5 Cir., 44 F.2d 166 . The judgment of the District Court was therefore right and is affirmed. We do not suggest that the Board’s alleged procedure was in any way defective.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.