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.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1976–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Lawgreen2 sentences1976See In re Law, 10 Cal. 3d 21 , 513 P.2d 621 ; Genung v. Nuckolls, 292 So. 2d 587 (Fla.); State v. Lawrence, 133 Vt. 330 , 340 A.2d 67 . 1976See In re Law, 10 Cal. 3d 21 , 513 P.2d 621 ; Genung v. Nuckolls, 292 So. 2d 587 (Fla.); State v. Lawrence, 133 Vt. 330 , 340 A.2d 67 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
1 sentence2008Even a parole revocation hearing “should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters, affidavits, and other material that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial.” Id., 489 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott
green
1 sentence2001The court concluded that, with respect to a parole revocation hearing, “[t]he deterrence benefits of the exclusionary rule would not outweigh these costs.” Id., 367 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
John A. Graham v. Lawrence R. Tilghman, Warden
neutral
1 sentence1996Cf. Graham v. Tilghman, 35 F.3d 74 (1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Peter Rea
green
1 sentence1987This finding reflected the view that the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule would not be significantly advanced by a double application of the exclusionary rule — first to prevent the criminal prosecution of the parolee, and then to suppress the illegally seized evidence in a parole revocation hearing in which the offending police officers could not possibly have had an interest at the time they conducted the illegal search. [Id., 1164].” (Footnote added; footnotes omitted; emphasis in original.) United States v. Rea, supra, 388-89 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Genung v. Nuckolls
green
2 sentences1976See In re Law, 10 Cal. 3d 21 , 513 P.2d 621 ; Genung v. Nuckolls, 292 So. 2d 587 (Fla.); State v. Lawrence, 133 Vt. 330 , 340 A.2d 67 . 1976See In re Law, 10 Cal. 3d 21 , 513 P.2d 621 ; Genung v. Nuckolls, 292 So. 2d 587 (Fla.); State v. Lawrence, 133 Vt. 330 , 340 A.2d 67 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Lawrence
green
2 sentences1976See In re Law, 10 Cal. 3d 21 , 513 P.2d 621 ; Genung v. Nuckolls, 292 So. 2d 587 (Fla.); State v. Lawrence, 133 Vt. 330 , 340 A.2d 67 . 1976See In re Law, 10 Cal. 3d 21 , 513 P.2d 621 ; Genung v. Nuckolls, 292 So. 2d 587 (Fla.); State v. Lawrence, 133 Vt. 330 , 340 A.2d 67 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.