IN RE TRANTINO PAROLE APPLICATION


89 N.J. 347 (1982)

446 A.2d 104

IN RE PAROLE APPLICATION OF THOMAS TRANTINO.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided May 20, 1982.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Stuart F. Pierson, a member of the District of Columbia Bar, argued the cause for appellant Thomas Trantino (George W. Conk, attorney; Stuart F. Pierson, Richard L. Cys and Nikki Heidepriem, members of the District of Columbia Bar, of counsel).

Roger H. McGlynn, Special Counsel, argued the cause for respondent and cross-appellant New Jersey State Parole Board (Lum, Biunno & Tompkins, attorneys).

Peter R. Feehan submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae the Voto Family and the Tedesco Family (Feehan & Feehan, attorneys).

Harry G. Carroll submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of amicus curiae Bergen County Police Chiefs' Association (Donald R. Conway, attorney).


The opinion of the Court was delivered by HANDLER, J.

This case raises important questions concerning the interpretation and application of the Parole Act of 1979. The initial issue presented on appeal is whether the State Parole Board is authorized under the Parole Act to impose restitution as a condition of parole for an inmate convicted of homicide and, if so, what standards are to be applied in fixing the amount of such...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases