Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Connecticut opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2001 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Harper
green
2 sentences2001The respondent contends that the standard in Turner "applies to all circumstances in which the needs of prison administration implicate constitutional rights." Washington v. Harper , 494 U.S. 210 , 224 , 110 S.Ct. 1028 , 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990). 2001The respondent contends that the standard in Turner "applies to all circumstances in which the needs of prison administration implicate constitutional rights." Washington v. Harper , 494 U.S. 210 , 224 , 110 S.Ct. 1028 , 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990). | 10 | 2000–2001 |
Turner v. Safley
green
2 sentences2001The court justified this broader standard stating: "Subjecting the day-to-day judgments of prison officials to an inflexible strict scrutiny analysis would seriously hamper their ability to anticipate security problems and to adopt innovative solutions to the intractable problems of prison administration." Id., 89 . 2001The court justified this broader standard stating: "Subjecting the day-to-day judgments of prison officials to an inflexible strict scrutiny analysis would seriously hamper their ability to anticipate security problems and to adopt innovative solutions to the intractable problems of prison administration." Id., 89 . | 10 | 2000–2001 |