Reaugh v. Reaugh

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Connecticut’s telephone harassment statute “regulates conduct, not mere speech [because] [w]hat is proscribed is the making of a telephone call, with the requisite intent and in the specified manner”
• upholding statute prohibiting telephone harassment as not unconstitutionally overbroad because such harassment involves conduct and intrudes on the privacy of others
• also noting that harassing telephone calls are “an unwarranted invasion of privacy,” that they appeared to be on the increase, and that they are properly outlawed by federal and state statutes
• Connecticut’s telephone harassment statute, General Statutes § 53a-183 [a] [3], justified by a “compelling” interest in the protection of “innocent individuals from fear, abuse or annoyance” at the hands of persons who misuse the phone
• Connecticut’s telephone harassment statute “regulates conduct, not mere speech. What is proscribed is the making of a telephone call, with the requisite intent and in the specified manner.”
• Connecticut’s telephone harassment statute “regulates conduct, not mere speech. What is proscribed is the making of a telephone call, with the requisite intent and in the specified manner.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).