Supreme Court of Connecticut· 9/19/2000

State v. Gibbs

Citations

254 Conn. 578
758 A.2d 327
2000 Conn. LEXIS 292

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that English proficiency requirement in § 51-217 [a] [3] did not violate equal protection clause of either federal or state constitution
concluding that English proficiency require- ment in § 51-217 [a] [3] did not violate equal protection clause of either federal or state constitution
rejecting absolute disparity, comparative disparity, and statistical decision analysis in favor of absolute impact where group comprised only 6.7% of the population
assuming non-English speakers are cognizable group for equal protection purposes, no constitutional violation because state’s interests in having jurors understand proceedings and avoiding jury disruption and costs associated with interpreters are “compelling”
assuming non-English speakers are cognizable group for equal protection purposes, no constitutional violation because state's interests in having jurors understand proceedings and avoiding jury disruption and costs associated with interpreters are \compelling\
His-panies comprised 6.7% of the population but only 4.21% of those responding to jury summonses

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McDonald

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

49 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

67 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.