No. 19-6032
Earnest Lee Langston v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: administrative-law administrative-review collateral-estoppel conflict-of-interest constitutional constitutional-law due-process ex-post-facto parole parole-regulation res-judicata state-regulation statute-of-limitations
Key Terms:
Securities
Securities
Latest Conference:
2020-01-17
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the ex post facto clause is violated when a newly modified state parole regulation is applied
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED WHETHER THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, Art. 1, Sec. 9, cl. 3, TS VIOLATED WHEN A NEWLY MODIFIED STATE PAROLE REGULATION TS APPLIED. Il. . WHETHER THE PAROLE BOARD CAN RELY UPON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND OTHER PROCEDURAL GROUNDS INVOLVING RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ; ESTOPPEL WHEN FRAUD OR CONCEALMENT TS AT TISSUE. Ill. WHETHER A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXIST BETWEEN THE APPELLATE COURTS OF MISSOURI INVOLVING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF PAROLE DECISIONS. ‘ -a
Docket Entries
2020-01-21
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-12-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.
2019-12-20
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-11-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-11-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2019.
2019-11-07
Supplemental brief of petitioner Earnest Langston filed. (DISTRIBUTED)
2019-08-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 23, 2019)