Matter of Emily R. (Magali M. C.)

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that public notification under Tennessee’s sex offender act “imposes no restraint whatever upon the activities of a registrant”
• concluding that sex-offender registration requirements do not impose an affirmative disability or restraint, in view of more restrictive measures having previously been deemed non-restraining by the Sixth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court
• holding that registration was less of an imposition on rights and abilities than revocation of a driver’s license
• holding that registration was less of an imposition on rights and abilities than revocation of a driver’s license
• concluding that the location of sex offender law within criminal procedure laws “does not assist us in determining whether the Act was intended to serve as punishment.”
• holding that Tennessee sex offender registry law does not violate prohibition against double jeopardy since state law imposes no affirmative disability or restraint, and its purpose and remedial and regulatory rather than punitive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).