Thomas v. G2 FMV, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “restraints compelled Piasecki’s physical presence at a specific location and severely conditioned his freedom of movement”
• explaining that Pennsylvania’s law was more “onerous” than those addressed in other cases
• finding sex offender registration requirements restrictive enough to constitute custody for habeas corpus \custody\ requirement and were part of petitioner's sentence
• finding sex offender registry requirements upon release “were sufficiently restrictive to constitute custody and that they were imposed pursuant to a state court judgment”
• “Both this court and Texas courts have reached the opposite conclusion, holding that Texas’s sex offender registration laws are remedial and not punitive.”
• “Rather, we hold that the custodial jurisdiction requirement is satisfied by severe, immediate, physical, and (according to the state’s own definition) punitive restraints on liberty that are imposed pursuant to—and included in—the judgment of a state court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).