Fitzharris v. Love

Fitzharris, Warden v. Love

Fitzharris v. Love, 409 U.S. 1100 (1973)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: January 8, 1973
Docket: No. 72-308
Judges: Certiorari, Stewart
Citations: 409 U.S. 110093 S. Ct. 896

Cited by 12 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded with directions to dismiss case as moot.

Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall would deny certiorari.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(a state parole authority’s change in the interpretation of a parole eligibility provision is subject to ex post facto constraints because the agency’s interpretation had the effect of law)

C.T. Akins, Jay M. Fate, Michael Schroeder v. Snow, 922 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1991)

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

C.T. Akins, Jay M. Fate, Michael Schroeder v. Wayne Snow, Jr., Chairman State Board of Pardons & Paroles922 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1991)
Hamm v. Latessa, MCI72 F.3d 947 (1st Cir. 1995) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
State v. Deddens542 P.2d 1124 (Ariz. 1975)
Aue v. Diesslin798 P.2d 436 (Colo. 1990)
Mileham v. Simmons588 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1979)
Andrew G. Holguin, Jr. v. Robert R. Raines695 F.2d 372 (9th Cir. 1982)

Most recent

D'Joy v. New York State Division of Parole127 F. Supp. 2d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
Hamm v. Latessa, MCI72 F.3d 947 (1st Cir. 1995) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
C.T. Akins, Jay M. Fate, Michael Schroeder v. Wayne Snow, Jr., Chairman State Board of Pardons & Paroles922 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1991)
Aue v. Diesslin798 P.2d 436 (Colo. 1990)
In re Jackson703 P.2d 100 (Cal. 1985)
Woulard v. Redman584 F. Supp. 247 (D. Del. 1984)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list