Providence Steel Iron Co., Inc. v. Flammand

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that lifetime electronic monitoring did not render the petitioner in custody because it did “not limit his physical movement”
• “A claim is within the core of habeas 7 when, if successful, it terminates custody, accelerates the future release from custody, [ ] or 8 reduces the level of custody.”
• Ninth Circuit and other circuits have found “a range of post-release 24 conditions imposed on sex offenders . . . did not place offenders ‘in custody’ under 25 § 2254”
• “Piasecki involved much more burdensome conditions than those addressed in our prior cases.”
• “Piasecki involved much more burdensome conditions than those addressed in our prior cases. . . . Piasecki’s analysis was consistent with our own precedent, but simply confronted far more severe restrictions than those we have addressed in our past cases.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).