Supreme Court of Connecticut· 8/17/1999
State v. Misiorski
Citations
- 250 Conn. 280
- 738 A.2d 595
- 1999 Conn. LEXIS 294
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- providing historical explanation of Megan's Laws and their adoption throughout the country
- providing historical explanation of Megan’s Laws and their adoption throughout the country
- providing historical explanation of Megan’s Laws and their adoption throughout the country
- court must have broad discretion to fashion conditions necessary to achieve probation objectives to foster offender's rehabilitation and to preserve public's safety
- court must have broad discretion to fashion conditions necessary to achieve probation objectives to foster offender’s rehabilitation and to preserve public’s safety
- conditions of probation are generally meant to “assure that the probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the community is not harmed by the probationer’s being at large” [internal quotation marks omitted]
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Berdon, McDonald
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- People v. J.W.Illinois Supreme Court· 2003-02-21· cited 228×
- State v. KellySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-05-08· cited 162×
- State v. FaradaySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-03-16· cited 119×
- State v. FERNANDO A.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-11-03· cited 74×
- State v. HillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-06-12· cited 33×
- State v. FowlkesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-09-11· cited 30×
- State v. ARTHUR H.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-08-26· cited 25×
- State v. ThorpConnecticut Appellate Court· 2000-03-28· cited 19×
- State v. JohnsonConnecticut Appellate Court· 2003-03-25· cited 17×
- State v. PierceConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-05-07· cited 16×
- Ramos v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-01-22· cited 14×
- State v. CyrConnecticut Appellate Court· 2000-05-23· cited 12×
- State v. ImperialeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-01-07· cited 9×
- State v. FaradayConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-04-30· cited 6×
- State v. BoyleConnecticut Appellate Court· 2007-07-17· cited 4×
- State v. MARTIN M.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2009-06-16· cited 4×
- State v. SILAS S.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-07-19· cited 4×
- State v. WebberConnecticut Appellate Court· 2024-04-23· cited 4×
- State v. SILAS S.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2009-12-01· cited 3×
- Carolina v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court· 2019-09-03· cited 1×
Cites
14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court· 1976-02-24· cited 16,859×
- Griffin v. WisconsinSupreme Court· 1987-06-26· cited 2,149×
- Doe v. PoritzSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1995-07-25· cited 688×
- Burns v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1932-12-05· cited 523×
- Nos. 96-5132, 96-5416Third Circuit· 1997-09-04· cited 301×
- In re Valerie D.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-08-18· cited 261×
- In re Baby Girl B.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-12-08· cited 196×
- State v. AmarilloSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-01-14· cited 130×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-04-19· cited 128×
- Blankenship v. Parke Care Centers, Inc.Supreme Court· 1998-02-23· cited 122×
- Doe v. Sex Offender Registry BoardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1998-07-24· cited 60×
- In re Baby Z.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-01-26· cited 40×
- Roe v. Office of Adult ProbationSecond Circuit· 1997-09-08· cited 35×
- State v. PiegerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-04-29· cited 32×
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.