State ex rel. McCarley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \protecting the health and safety of clinic patients is a compelling state interest justifying restrictions on the demonstrations\
• holding that, although imprisonment is generally thought to be the paradigmatic form of punishment, pretrial detention to protect the public is not regarded as punitive
• holding that in a facial challenge plaintiffs must show that \no set of circumstances exists\ under which the statute can be implemented constitutionally
• holding that preventative detention under Bail Reform Act, justified by the need to prevent “danger to the community,” was regulatory and preventative, rather than punitive
• holding that pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act of 1984 did not violate the due process clause
• holding that, to be successful, facial challenge must establish “that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).