Marion Bowman, Jr. v. Bryan Stirling

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding Section 53a-183 (a)(3) against attack in light of Supreme Court's decision in State v. Indrisano , 228 Conn. 795 (1994), holding that 53a-182 (a)(2) was impermissibly vague
• rejecting challenge to jury instruction, applying term “repeatedly,” stating that state’s stalking statute “does not attempt to place the boundaries of time or space around a prescribed repetitive conduct” and informing jury that was their function as finders of fact
• rejecting challenge to jury instruction, applying term “repeatedly,” stating that state’s stalking statute “does not attempt to place the boundaries of time or space around a prescribed repetitive conduct” and informing jury that was their function as finders of fact
• rejecting challenge to jury instruction, applying term “repeatedly,” stating that state’s stalking statute “does not attempt to place the boundaries of time or space around a prescribed repetitive conduct” and informing jury that was their function as finders of fact
• terms “repeatedly,” “follows,” and “lies in wait,” as 19 used in Section 53a-181d, were not unconstitutionally 20 vague
• conviction for violating the protective order when the victim saw the defendant’s truck driving past her apartment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).