Montana Supreme Court· 4/16/1996
State v. Fuller
Citations
- 915 P.2d 809
- 276 Mont. 155
- 53 State Rptr. 325
- 1996 Mont. LEXIS 58
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that probationer was placed in classic penalty situation when he was required to participate in a sex offender program that required participants to disclose their offense history as a condition of probation
- holding that probationer was placed in classic penalty situation when he was required to participate in a sex offender program that required participants to disclose their offense history as a condition of probation
- trial court’s threat to revoke suspended sentence for sex offense if defendant failed to comply with treatment program, including requirement to disclose sexual history, threatened “a real and significant punishment”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hunt, Trieweiler, Nelson, Leaphart, Gray, Turnage, Erdmann
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Ohio v. RobinetteSupreme Court· 1996-11-18· cited 2,025×
- In re A.N.Montana Supreme Court· 2000-02-08· cited 79×
- Park v. Montana Sixth Judicial District CourtMontana Supreme Court· 1998-06-25· cited 71×
- Chapman v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2003-09-10· cited 67×
- Bleeke v. LemmonIndiana Supreme Court· 2014-04-16· cited 56×
- State v. ShrevesMontana Supreme Court· 2002-12-20· cited 53×
- People v. GarciaCalifornia Supreme Court· 2017-03-20· cited 53×
- In the Interest of E.H.Supreme Court of Iowa· 1998-05-28· cited 50×
- State v. GattsMontana Supreme Court· 1996-11-01· cited 32×
- State v. Harley HowardMontana Supreme Court· 2011-10-04· cited 30×
- State v. WoodsMontana Supreme Court· 1997-06-26· cited 29×
- State v. HillMontana Supreme Court· 2009-04-16· cited 28×
- State v. CesnikMontana Supreme Court· 2005-10-19· cited 25×
- Dzul v. StateNevada Supreme Court· 2002-10-31· cited 24×
- State v. SmallMontana Supreme Court· 1996-11-07· cited 20×
- In re R.L.H.Montana Supreme Court· 2005-07-19· cited 20×
- State v. Sylvester HamelineMontana Supreme Court· 2008-07-08· cited 18×
- State v. KaquatoshCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 1999-09-28· cited 17×
- Ainsworth v. RisleyFirst Circuit· 2001-04-03· cited 13×
- State v. PlouffeMontana Supreme Court· 2014-07-15· cited 12×
Cites
33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court· 1967-05-15· cited 5,473×
- Baxter v. PalmigianoSupreme Court· 1976-04-20· cited 2,133×
- Estelle v. SmithSupreme Court· 1981-05-18· cited 2,053×
- Minnesota v. MurphySupreme Court· 1984-02-22· cited 1,569×
- Garrity v. New JerseySupreme Court· 1967-01-23· cited 1,543×
- Michigan v. TuckerSupreme Court· 1974-06-10· cited 1,437×
- Marchetti v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1968-01-29· cited 1,283×
- Lefkowitz v. TurleySupreme Court· 1973-11-19· cited 1,102×
- Grosso v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1968-01-29· cited 947×
- MacKey v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1971-04-05· cited 945×
- Maness v. MeyersSupreme Court· 1975-01-15· cited 849×
- Roberts v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1980-04-15· cited 734×
- Gardner v. BroderickSupreme Court· 1968-06-10· cited 696×
- Steer, Inc. v. Department of RevenueMontana Supreme Court· 1990-12-11· cited 621×
- Lefkowitz v. CunninghamSupreme Court· 1977-06-13· cited 598×
- Garner v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1976-03-23· cited 531×
- United States v. MandujanoSupreme Court· 1976-05-19· cited 525×
- Uniformed Sanitation Men Ass'n v. Commissioner of Sanitation of New YorkSupreme Court· 1968-06-10· cited 436×
- United States v. MoniaSupreme Court· 1943-02-08· cited 413×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.