First Circuit· 1/27/2004

United States v. York

Citations

357 F.3d 14
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1153
2004 WL 144121

How courts have described this case

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

holding that a decision is a core judicial function if it is a “significant penological decision” such as determining whether a probationer should undergo specific types of treatment
holding that there was no threat of revocation of supervised release because the court construed a condition of the release as prohibiting revocation based on a valid assertion of the Fifth Amendment
concluding that the defendant “cannot mount a generalized Fifth Amendment attack on the conditions of his supervised release on the ground that he will be required to answer probation officers’ questions truthfully.”
reasoning that setting a schedule for polygraph testing is a “matter of administrative detail,” not a core judicial func- tion
reasoning that setting a schedule for polygraph testing is a “matter of administrative detail,” not a core judicial func- tion
upholding sex offender conditions based on prior convictions for indecent assault on minors, nine years and three years before sentencing, respectively

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Selya, Cyr, Lynch

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases named United States v. York

23 other CourtListener records share this case 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.