# Franklin v. Shields

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 19, 1977 · 569 F.2d 784

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8904468

## Case

- **Full name:** Lynell FRANKLIN, Charles Jones, Lawrence Wilson, and Charles R. Vette v. Pleasant C. SHIELDS, Morris L. Ridley, W. K. Cunningham, Margaret Davis, N. W. Perdue, Appellees Lynell FRANKLIN, Charles Jones, Lawrence Wilson, and Charles R. Vette v. Pleasant C. SHIELDS, Morris L. Ridley, W. K. Cunningham, Margaret Davis, N. W. Perdue, Appellants Lee Royal WILLIAMS v. VIRGINIA PROBATION AND PAROLE BOARD
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 19, 1977
- **Citations:** 569 F.2d 784
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Widener
- **Judges:** Butzner, Field, Widener
- **Cited by:** 101 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8904468

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that parole board members performing a quasi-judicial function are immune from damages liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .
- finding inmates have a limited liberty interest in parole entitling them to a statement of reasons for denial of parole

## Opinion text

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
While I concur in the result and in nearly all of the opinion of the majority, I think we “anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.” Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 346 [ 56 S.Ct. 466, 483 , 80 L.Ed. 688 ] (1936) (Mr. Justice Brandéis concurring). Since the Board already does everything that may be constitutionally required, including giving the reasons for a denial of parole, I think an approach preferable to the dictum would be to assume that if there were a constitutional requirement, it has been lived up to, thus avoiding a question “of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.” Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283, 295 [ 25 S.Ct. 243, 245 , 49 L.Ed. 482 ] (1905).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8904468. Public record. Not legal advice.