Roth v. Fabian

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that once a community-notification act is determined to be nonpunitive, the Double Jeopardy Clause is inoperative
• concluding that former R.C. Chapter 2950 did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States or Ohio Constitution because “Cook held that R.C. Chapter 2950 is neither ‘criminal,’ nor a statute that inflicts punishment.”
• noting that because R.C. Chapter 2950 is neither a criminal statute, nor one that inflicts punishment, it therefore does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions
• noting right to privacy only applies to information not \readily available to the public\ and thus does not cover required registration information for sex offenders
• noting that a suspect class has traditionally been defined as one involving race, national origin, or religion, and that \fundamental rights\ have been defined to include such rights as the right to vote, the right to procreate, and the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment
• “The information disseminated to the public ... is a public record, and the right to privacy encompasses only personal information and not information readily available to the public.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).