Connecticut Appellate Court· 5/22/2007

State v. Russell

Citations

922 A.2d 191
101 Conn. App. 298
2007 Conn. App. LEXIS 209

How courts have described this case

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

applying stalking statute requiring proof defendant ÂrepeatedlyÂ followed victim and noting statute Âcontains no explicit limitations as to the temporal interval between actsÂ
applying stalking statute requiring proof defendant “repeatedly” followed victim and noting statute “contains no explicit limitations as to the temporal interval between acts”
applying stalking statute requiring proof defendant repeatedly followed victim and noting statute contains no explicit limitations as to the temporal interval between acts
applying stalking statute requiring proof defendant “repeatedly” followed victim and noting statute “contains no explicit limitations as to the temporal interval between acts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Flynn, Rogers, Pellegrino

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

33 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.