Spencer v. Kemna
- Decided
- March 3, 1998
- Docket
- 96-7171
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,515 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the collateral consequences of a parole revocation were insufficient to create a case or controversy after the petitioner was released — United States v. Clark (1999)
- holding that the “in custody” provision only requires that the petitioner be in custody at the time the petition is filed — Santos Perez v. Charles Greiner, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility (2002)
- holding that the exception did not apply because the expiration of petitioner’s sentence negated any reasonable expectation of another round of parole and revocation — Sherman v. United States Parole Commission (2007)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Scalía delivered the opinion of the Court.
In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Randy G. Spencer seeks to invalidate a September 24,1992, order revoking his parole. Because Spencer has completed the entire term of imprisonment underlying the parole revocation, we must decide whether his petition is moot.
1 — !
Statutes cited
Cite this
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.