In Re King

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that sex offender registration for the offense of indecent exposure constitutes cruel and unusual punishment
• holding that sex offender registration for the offense of indecent exposure constitutes cruel and unusual punishment
• requiring certain misdemeanants to register as sex offenders is always cruel and unusual punishment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Monroe
  California Court of Appeal· 1985-06-06· cited 26×
• People v. King
  California Court of Appeal· 1993-06-11· cited 23×
• In Re DeBeque
  California Court of Appeal· 1989-07-19· cited 22×
• People v. Tate
  California Court of Appeal· 1985-01-25· cited 14×
• People v. Noriega
  California Court of Appeal· 2004-12-14· cited 8×
• Johnson v. Terhune
  Ninth Circuit· 2006-06-09· cited 8×
• State v. Chun
  Hawaii Supreme Court· 2003-09-25· cited 7×
• People v. Kun
  California Court of Appeal· 1987-10-06· cited 5×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
  California Supreme Court· 1962-03-22· cited 2,916×
• In Re Lynch
  California Supreme Court· 1972-12-04· cited 852×
• In Re Reed
  California Supreme Court· 1983-05-26· cited 104×
• In Re Dellasala
  California Court of Appeal· 1977-01-27· cited 3×