context
stringlengths 58
1.13k
| citation_a
dict | citation_b
dict | case_id
int64 475
12.5M
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
As articulated in our case law, to determine whether a person's consent was voluntarily given or coerced, the proper analytical framework is whether a person has knowingly waived his right to refuse to consent to the search. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that \"many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "384 U.S. 436, 444",
"parenthetical": "setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | 3,762,445 | b |
As articulated in our case law, to determine whether a person's consent was voluntarily given or coerced, the proper analytical framework is whether a person has knowingly waived his right to refuse to consent to the search. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "44 N.J. 353, 353",
"parenthetical": "noting that \"many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612",
"parenthetical": "setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | 3,762,445 | b |
As articulated in our case law, to determine whether a person's consent was voluntarily given or coerced, the proper analytical framework is whether a person has knowingly waived his right to refuse to consent to the search. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612",
"parenthetical": "setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that \"many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | 3,762,445 | a |
As articulated in our case law, to determine whether a person's consent was voluntarily given or coerced, the proper analytical framework is whether a person has knowingly waived his right to refuse to consent to the search. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "44 N.J. 353, 353",
"parenthetical": "noting that \"many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707",
"parenthetical": "setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | 3,762,445 | b |
As articulated in our case law, to determine whether a person's consent was voluntarily given or coerced, the proper analytical framework is whether a person has knowingly waived his right to refuse to consent to the search. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707",
"parenthetical": "setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that \"many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | 3,762,445 | a |
As articulated in our case law, to determine whether a person's consent was voluntarily given or coerced, the proper analytical framework is whether a person has knowingly waived his right to refuse to consent to the search. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "68 N.J. 355, 355",
"parenthetical": "\"Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice\" and free choice is \"effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "44 N.J. 353, 353",
"parenthetical": "noting that \"many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | 3,762,445 | a |
As articulated in our case law, to determine whether a person's consent was voluntarily given or coerced, the proper analytical framework is whether a person has knowingly waived his right to refuse to consent to the search. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "68 N.J. 355, 355",
"parenthetical": "\"Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice\" and free choice is \"effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that \"many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | 3,762,445 | a |
As articulated in our case law, to determine whether a person's consent was voluntarily given or coerced, the proper analytical framework is whether a person has knowingly waived his right to refuse to consent to the search. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice\" and free choice is \"effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "44 N.J. 353, 353",
"parenthetical": "noting that \"many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | 3,762,445 | a |
As articulated in our case law, to determine whether a person's consent was voluntarily given or coerced, the proper analytical framework is whether a person has knowingly waived his right to refuse to consent to the search. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice\" and free choice is \"effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that \"many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested\"",
"sentence": "See Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 353-54, 346 A.2d 66 (establishing standard of voluntariness of consent under Article I, Paragraph 7, as knowing and intelligent waiver, which includes knowledge of right to refuse consent); State v. King, 44 N.J. 346, 352-53, 209 A.2d 110 (1965) (setting forth various non-exhaustive factors supporting either voluntary or coerced nature of consent). Free choice remains an indispensable tenet of our law — for example, the choice to submit to interrogation or to consent to a search. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966); Johnson, supra, 68 N.J. at 355, 346 A.2d 66 (Schreiber, J., concurring) (“Consent contemplates the exercise of a choice” and free choice is “effectively safeguarded if the occupant of the premises knows that the search may be refused.”); see also King, supra, 44 N.J. at 353, 209 A.2d 110 (noting that “many decisions have sustained a finding that consent was voluntarily given even though the consent was obtained under the authority of the badge or after the accused had been arrested”)."
} | 3,762,445 | a |
136 Yet that interpretation is new. For years, divisions of the court of appeals agreed that the statute's "probable cause" requirement implied a lawful stop. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "833 P.2d 830, 831",
"parenthetical": "holding that a police officer may not direct a driver to submit to aleohol testing absent \"probable cause\" and, by implication, \"reasonable suspicion for the initial stop\"",
"sentence": "Seq, e.g., Peterson v. Tipton, 833 P.2d 830, 831 (Colo.App.1992) (holding that a police officer may not direct a driver to submit to aleohol testing absent \"probable cause\" and, by implication, \"reasonable suspicion for the initial stop\"); see also Baldwin v. Huber, 223 P.3d 150, 152 (Colo.App.2009) (evaluating whether the initial stop was lawful under the reasonable suspicion standard); Wallace v. Dep't of Revenue, 787 P.2d 181, 182-83 (Colo.App.1989) (concluding, under an old statutory scheme, that the initial stop was \"justified under the reasonable suspicion standard\")."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "223 P.3d 150, 152",
"parenthetical": "evaluating whether the initial stop was lawful under the reasonable suspicion standard",
"sentence": "Seq, e.g., Peterson v. Tipton, 833 P.2d 830, 831 (Colo.App.1992) (holding that a police officer may not direct a driver to submit to aleohol testing absent \"probable cause\" and, by implication, \"reasonable suspicion for the initial stop\"); see also Baldwin v. Huber, 223 P.3d 150, 152 (Colo.App.2009) (evaluating whether the initial stop was lawful under the reasonable suspicion standard); Wallace v. Dep't of Revenue, 787 P.2d 181, 182-83 (Colo.App.1989) (concluding, under an old statutory scheme, that the initial stop was \"justified under the reasonable suspicion standard\")."
} | 6,933,916 | a |
136 Yet that interpretation is new. For years, divisions of the court of appeals agreed that the statute's "probable cause" requirement implied a lawful stop. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "833 P.2d 830, 831",
"parenthetical": "holding that a police officer may not direct a driver to submit to aleohol testing absent \"probable cause\" and, by implication, \"reasonable suspicion for the initial stop\"",
"sentence": "Seq, e.g., Peterson v. Tipton, 833 P.2d 830, 831 (Colo.App.1992) (holding that a police officer may not direct a driver to submit to aleohol testing absent \"probable cause\" and, by implication, \"reasonable suspicion for the initial stop\"); see also Baldwin v. Huber, 223 P.3d 150, 152 (Colo.App.2009) (evaluating whether the initial stop was lawful under the reasonable suspicion standard); Wallace v. Dep't of Revenue, 787 P.2d 181, 182-83 (Colo.App.1989) (concluding, under an old statutory scheme, that the initial stop was \"justified under the reasonable suspicion standard\")."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "787 P.2d 181, 182-83",
"parenthetical": "concluding, under an old statutory scheme, that the initial stop was \"justified under the reasonable suspicion standard\"",
"sentence": "Seq, e.g., Peterson v. Tipton, 833 P.2d 830, 831 (Colo.App.1992) (holding that a police officer may not direct a driver to submit to aleohol testing absent \"probable cause\" and, by implication, \"reasonable suspicion for the initial stop\"); see also Baldwin v. Huber, 223 P.3d 150, 152 (Colo.App.2009) (evaluating whether the initial stop was lawful under the reasonable suspicion standard); Wallace v. Dep't of Revenue, 787 P.2d 181, 182-83 (Colo.App.1989) (concluding, under an old statutory scheme, that the initial stop was \"justified under the reasonable suspicion standard\")."
} | 6,933,916 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "351 S.C. 139, 139-40",
"parenthetical": "finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has \"at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "568 S.E.2d 346, 346",
"parenthetical": "finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has \"at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | b |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "351 S.C. 139, 139-40",
"parenthetical": "finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has \"at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "568 S.E.2d 346, 346",
"parenthetical": "finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has \"at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | b |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | b |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | b |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "351 S.C. 139, 139-40",
"parenthetical": "finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has \"at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | b |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "568 S.E.2d 346, 346",
"parenthetical": "finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has \"at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "finding an individual's liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | b |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | b |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "351 S.C. 139, 139-40",
"parenthetical": "finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has \"at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "568 S.E.2d 346, 346",
"parenthetical": "finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has \"at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | b |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | b |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | b |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "351 S.C. 139, 139-40",
"parenthetical": "finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has \"at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "568 S.E.2d 346, 346",
"parenthetical": "finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has \"at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | b |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | b |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is \"not a toothless one\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "351 S.C. 139, 139-40",
"parenthetical": "finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has \"at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
Applying the rational basis test to Appellant's due process challenge, I would find the mandated lifetime satellite monitoring and absence of any judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's likelihood of re-offending renders the challenged provision arbitrary. Further, in light of the legislature's predication of the statutory scheme on the substantial purpose of protecting the public from sex offenders who may re-offend, I would find the lack of risk assessment within section 23-3-540(C) not rationally related to such purpose, and thus unconstitutional. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "568 S.E.2d 346, 346",
"parenthetical": "finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has \"at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary\"",
"sentence": "See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (finding an individual’s liberty interest in the outcome of a civil commitment proceeding is of such weight and gravity that due process requires the state to justify confinement by clear and convincing proof); Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (upholding sexually violent predator commitment statute and emphasizing the role of the review to ensure commitment lasts only so long as it is necessary to protect the public); see also Lyng v. Int’l Union, 485 U.S. 360, 108 S.Ct. 1184, 99 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988) (noting that although allegedly arbitrary legislation invokes the least intrusive rational basis test, that standard of review is “not a toothless one”); Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. at 139-40, 568 S.E.2d at 346 (finding due process ensures that a statute which deprives a person of a liberty interest has “at a minimum, a rational basis, and may not be arbitrary”)."
} | 3,880,419 | a |
In any event, even construing plaintiffs allegations broadly and in his favor, and accepting that his subjective fear of the alleged comments and minimal contact was genuinely felt, the Court finds that the necessary pervasiveness or severity is lacking in this ease. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "524 U.S. 775, 788",
"parenthetical": "\"simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "300 F.3d 928, 935",
"parenthetical": "collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | 4,358,607 | a |
In any event, even construing plaintiffs allegations broadly and in his favor, and accepting that his subjective fear of the alleged comments and minimal contact was genuinely felt, the Court finds that the necessary pervasiveness or severity is lacking in this ease. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "524 U.S. 775, 788",
"parenthetical": "\"simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | 4,358,607 | a |
In any event, even construing plaintiffs allegations broadly and in his favor, and accepting that his subjective fear of the alleged comments and minimal contact was genuinely felt, the Court finds that the necessary pervasiveness or severity is lacking in this ease. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "524 U.S. 775, 788",
"parenthetical": "\"simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | 4,358,607 | b |
In any event, even construing plaintiffs allegations broadly and in his favor, and accepting that his subjective fear of the alleged comments and minimal contact was genuinely felt, the Court finds that the necessary pervasiveness or severity is lacking in this ease. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "524 U.S. 775, 788",
"parenthetical": "\"simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | 4,358,607 | b |
In any event, even construing plaintiffs allegations broadly and in his favor, and accepting that his subjective fear of the alleged comments and minimal contact was genuinely felt, the Court finds that the necessary pervasiveness or severity is lacking in this ease. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "300 F.3d 928, 935",
"parenthetical": "collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | 4,358,607 | a |
In any event, even construing plaintiffs allegations broadly and in his favor, and accepting that his subjective fear of the alleged comments and minimal contact was genuinely felt, the Court finds that the necessary pervasiveness or severity is lacking in this ease. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | 4,358,607 | a |
In any event, even construing plaintiffs allegations broadly and in his favor, and accepting that his subjective fear of the alleged comments and minimal contact was genuinely felt, the Court finds that the necessary pervasiveness or severity is lacking in this ease. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | 4,358,607 | a |
In any event, even construing plaintiffs allegations broadly and in his favor, and accepting that his subjective fear of the alleged comments and minimal contact was genuinely felt, the Court finds that the necessary pervasiveness or severity is lacking in this ease. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | 4,358,607 | a |
In any event, even construing plaintiffs allegations broadly and in his favor, and accepting that his subjective fear of the alleged comments and minimal contact was genuinely felt, the Court finds that the necessary pervasiveness or severity is lacking in this ease. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "300 F.3d 928, 935",
"parenthetical": "collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | 4,358,607 | b |
In any event, even construing plaintiffs allegations broadly and in his favor, and accepting that his subjective fear of the alleged comments and minimal contact was genuinely felt, the Court finds that the necessary pervasiveness or severity is lacking in this ease. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | 4,358,607 | b |
In any event, even construing plaintiffs allegations broadly and in his favor, and accepting that his subjective fear of the alleged comments and minimal contact was genuinely felt, the Court finds that the necessary pervasiveness or severity is lacking in this ease. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | 4,358,607 | b |
In any event, even construing plaintiffs allegations broadly and in his favor, and accepting that his subjective fear of the alleged comments and minimal contact was genuinely felt, the Court finds that the necessary pervasiveness or severity is lacking in this ease. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "\"simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment\"",
"sentence": "See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (“simple teasing, offhand. comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory- changes in the terms and conditions of employment”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Duncan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 994, 123 S.Ct. 1789, 155 L.Ed.2d 695 (2003) (collecting cases where the environment. was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, despite the existence of teasing, sexual jokes, inappropriate sexual comments, and repeated instances of unwanted sexual contact)."
} | 4,358,607 | b |
However, as a result of his acquittal, we simply cannot conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that he would be subjected to the same conduct. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "423 U.S. 149, 149",
"parenthetical": "former inmate's challenge to parole decisions mooted upon his release from supervision",
"sentence": "See Weinstein, 423 U.S. at 149, 96 S.Ct. 347 (former inmate’s challenge to parole decisions mooted upon his release from supervision); see also Abdul-Akbar, 4 F.3d at 206 (cautioning against “conjecture” that prisoner could again be incarcerated at maximum security unit and holding prisoner’s release from maximum security unit mooted challenge to law library in maximum security unit)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "4 F.3d 206, 206",
"parenthetical": "cautioning against \"conjecture\" that prisoner could again be incarcerated at maximum security unit and holding prisoner's release from maximum security unit mooted challenge to law library in maximum security unit",
"sentence": "See Weinstein, 423 U.S. at 149, 96 S.Ct. 347 (former inmate’s challenge to parole decisions mooted upon his release from supervision); see also Abdul-Akbar, 4 F.3d at 206 (cautioning against “conjecture” that prisoner could again be incarcerated at maximum security unit and holding prisoner’s release from maximum security unit mooted challenge to law library in maximum security unit)."
} | 11,083,966 | a |
However, as a result of his acquittal, we simply cannot conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that he would be subjected to the same conduct. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "former inmate's challenge to parole decisions mooted upon his release from supervision",
"sentence": "See Weinstein, 423 U.S. at 149, 96 S.Ct. 347 (former inmate’s challenge to parole decisions mooted upon his release from supervision); see also Abdul-Akbar, 4 F.3d at 206 (cautioning against “conjecture” that prisoner could again be incarcerated at maximum security unit and holding prisoner’s release from maximum security unit mooted challenge to law library in maximum security unit)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "4 F.3d 206, 206",
"parenthetical": "cautioning against \"conjecture\" that prisoner could again be incarcerated at maximum security unit and holding prisoner's release from maximum security unit mooted challenge to law library in maximum security unit",
"sentence": "See Weinstein, 423 U.S. at 149, 96 S.Ct. 347 (former inmate’s challenge to parole decisions mooted upon his release from supervision); see also Abdul-Akbar, 4 F.3d at 206 (cautioning against “conjecture” that prisoner could again be incarcerated at maximum security unit and holding prisoner’s release from maximum security unit mooted challenge to law library in maximum security unit)."
} | 11,083,966 | a |
First, even if bona fide leases exist between the Movants and the Debtors, they are not leases of nonresidential real property. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "52 B.R. 715, 722",
"parenthetical": "agreeing with the debtor that a lease of property used by the debtor to operate a life-care facility was not a- lease of \"nonresidential real property,\" as people resided in the leased property and the fact that the debtor corporation did not reside thereupon was irrelevant",
"sentence": "See In re Independence Vill., Inc., 52 B.R. 715, 722 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1985) (agreeing with the debtor that a lease of property used by the debtor to operate a life-care facility was not a- lease of “nonresidential real property,” as people resided in the leased property and the fact that the debtor corporation did not reside thereupon was irrelevant); see also In re Care Givers, Inc., 113 B.R. 263 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1989) (holding that leases of real property upon which the debtor operated senior nursing homes were not leases of nonresidential real property); Matter of Terrace Apts., Ltd., 107 B.R. 382, 383 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1989) (Kahn."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that leases of real property upon which the debtor operated senior nursing homes were not leases of nonresidential real property",
"sentence": "See In re Independence Vill., Inc., 52 B.R. 715, 722 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1985) (agreeing with the debtor that a lease of property used by the debtor to operate a life-care facility was not a- lease of “nonresidential real property,” as people resided in the leased property and the fact that the debtor corporation did not reside thereupon was irrelevant); see also In re Care Givers, Inc., 113 B.R. 263 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1989) (holding that leases of real property upon which the debtor operated senior nursing homes were not leases of nonresidential real property); Matter of Terrace Apts., Ltd., 107 B.R. 382, 383 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1989) (Kahn."
} | 4,284,357 | a |
Although the nexus of this action to international and foreign banking provides a sufficient basis for federal jurisdiction under Section 632, the jurisdictional requirement is alternatively satisfied, because this suit "aris[es] ... out of other international or foreign financial operations." Indeed, in this context, the plain meaning of the phrase "other international or foreign financial operations" is international or foreign financial operations other than banking. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "444 U.S. 37, 42",
"parenthetical": "words in statutes must be given their ordinary, contemporary common meaning",
"sentence": "Travis, 23 F.Supp. 363 (issuance of securities by corporation constituted foreign financial operations for purposes of Section 632); & Bjorkman, supra at 128 (“[I]t is not merely international or foreign ‘banking’ that triggers jurisdiction under Section 632”); see also Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42,100 S.Ct. 311, 314, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979) (words in statutes must be given their ordinary, contemporary common meaning)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "issuance of securities by corporation constituted foreign financial operations for purposes of Section 632",
"sentence": "Travis, 23 F.Supp. 363 (issuance of securities by corporation constituted foreign financial operations for purposes of Section 632); & Bjorkman, supra at 128 (“[I]t is not merely international or foreign ‘banking’ that triggers jurisdiction under Section 632”); see also Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42,100 S.Ct. 311, 314, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979) (words in statutes must be given their ordinary, contemporary common meaning)."
} | 3,464,442 | b |
Although the nexus of this action to international and foreign banking provides a sufficient basis for federal jurisdiction under Section 632, the jurisdictional requirement is alternatively satisfied, because this suit "aris[es] ... out of other international or foreign financial operations." Indeed, in this context, the plain meaning of the phrase "other international or foreign financial operations" is international or foreign financial operations other than banking. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "100 S.Ct. 311, 314",
"parenthetical": "words in statutes must be given their ordinary, contemporary common meaning",
"sentence": "Travis, 23 F.Supp. 363 (issuance of securities by corporation constituted foreign financial operations for purposes of Section 632); & Bjorkman, supra at 128 (“[I]t is not merely international or foreign ‘banking’ that triggers jurisdiction under Section 632”); see also Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42,100 S.Ct. 311, 314, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979) (words in statutes must be given their ordinary, contemporary common meaning)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "issuance of securities by corporation constituted foreign financial operations for purposes of Section 632",
"sentence": "Travis, 23 F.Supp. 363 (issuance of securities by corporation constituted foreign financial operations for purposes of Section 632); & Bjorkman, supra at 128 (“[I]t is not merely international or foreign ‘banking’ that triggers jurisdiction under Section 632”); see also Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42,100 S.Ct. 311, 314, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979) (words in statutes must be given their ordinary, contemporary common meaning)."
} | 3,464,442 | b |
Although the nexus of this action to international and foreign banking provides a sufficient basis for federal jurisdiction under Section 632, the jurisdictional requirement is alternatively satisfied, because this suit "aris[es] ... out of other international or foreign financial operations." Indeed, in this context, the plain meaning of the phrase "other international or foreign financial operations" is international or foreign financial operations other than banking. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "issuance of securities by corporation constituted foreign financial operations for purposes of Section 632",
"sentence": "Travis, 23 F.Supp. 363 (issuance of securities by corporation constituted foreign financial operations for purposes of Section 632); & Bjorkman, supra at 128 (“[I]t is not merely international or foreign ‘banking’ that triggers jurisdiction under Section 632”); see also Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42,100 S.Ct. 311, 314, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979) (words in statutes must be given their ordinary, contemporary common meaning)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "words in statutes must be given their ordinary, contemporary common meaning",
"sentence": "Travis, 23 F.Supp. 363 (issuance of securities by corporation constituted foreign financial operations for purposes of Section 632); & Bjorkman, supra at 128 (“[I]t is not merely international or foreign ‘banking’ that triggers jurisdiction under Section 632”); see also Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42,100 S.Ct. 311, 314, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979) (words in statutes must be given their ordinary, contemporary common meaning)."
} | 3,464,442 | a |
Counsel argued that after receiving notice of the default judgment in mid-March 2005, Caraballo consulted with him "sometime in April or thereabouts." Counsel further stated that for his own reasons, he waited another "couple of weeks," until May 4, to complete and file the sworn motion. Unsworn argument of counsel is insufficient to satisfy the due diligence element of a motion to vacate a default final judgment. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "ruling that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's motion to vacate default judgment \"[s]ince the motion seeking relief consisted of merely unsworn to representations of counsel, unsupported by proof showing any excusable neglect, and the only evidence before the court actually refuted these representations\"",
"sentence": "Polygram Latino U.S. v. Torres, 751 So.2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(ruling that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to vacate default judgment “[s]ince the motion seeking relief consisted of merely unsworn to representations of counsel, unsupported by proof showing any excusable neglect, and the only evidence before the court actually refuted these representations”); see also Daughtrey v. Daughtrey, 944 So.2d 1145, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)(“[a]s this court has previously observed, unsworn representations by counsel about factual matters do not have any evidentiary weight in the absence of a stipulation”); State v. Bauman, 425 So.2d 32, 35 n. 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)(“We say again that facts are not established for consideration by the trial court or by appellate review when attorneys make representations in their arguments before the trial court."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "944 So.2d 1145, 1148",
"parenthetical": "\"[a]s this court has previously observed, unsworn representations by counsel about factual matters do not have any evidentiary weight in the absence of a stipulation\"",
"sentence": "Polygram Latino U.S. v. Torres, 751 So.2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(ruling that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to vacate default judgment “[s]ince the motion seeking relief consisted of merely unsworn to representations of counsel, unsupported by proof showing any excusable neglect, and the only evidence before the court actually refuted these representations”); see also Daughtrey v. Daughtrey, 944 So.2d 1145, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)(“[a]s this court has previously observed, unsworn representations by counsel about factual matters do not have any evidentiary weight in the absence of a stipulation”); State v. Bauman, 425 So.2d 32, 35 n. 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)(“We say again that facts are not established for consideration by the trial court or by appellate review when attorneys make representations in their arguments before the trial court."
} | 8,319,513 | a |
ORS 107.135(l)(a) provides, in part, that a court may "[s]et aside, alter or modify so much of the decree as may provide * * * for the support of a party * * The key phrase in the statute is the present tense verb phrase "may provide." That phrase implies that there must be an existing support obligation at the time that the court exercises its authority to modify. Our case law supports that interpretation of the statutory scheme. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "98 Or App 83, 87",
"parenthetical": "holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "98 Or App 352, 353",
"parenthetical": "holding that, \"[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]\" and after that date \"husband had no obligation that could support a modification\"",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | 1,296,469 | b |
ORS 107.135(l)(a) provides, in part, that a court may "[s]et aside, alter or modify so much of the decree as may provide * * * for the support of a party * * The key phrase in the statute is the present tense verb phrase "may provide." That phrase implies that there must be an existing support obligation at the time that the court exercises its authority to modify. Our case law supports that interpretation of the statutory scheme. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "98 Or App 352, 353",
"parenthetical": "holding that, \"[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]\" and after that date \"husband had no obligation that could support a modification\"",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | 1,296,469 | a |
ORS 107.135(l)(a) provides, in part, that a court may "[s]et aside, alter or modify so much of the decree as may provide * * * for the support of a party * * The key phrase in the statute is the present tense verb phrase "may provide." That phrase implies that there must be an existing support obligation at the time that the court exercises its authority to modify. Our case law supports that interpretation of the statutory scheme. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "98 Or App 352, 353",
"parenthetical": "holding that, \"[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]\" and after that date \"husband had no obligation that could support a modification\"",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | 1,296,469 | a |
ORS 107.135(l)(a) provides, in part, that a court may "[s]et aside, alter or modify so much of the decree as may provide * * * for the support of a party * * The key phrase in the statute is the present tense verb phrase "may provide." That phrase implies that there must be an existing support obligation at the time that the court exercises its authority to modify. Our case law supports that interpretation of the statutory scheme. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "98 Or App 352, 353",
"parenthetical": "holding that, \"[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]\" and after that date \"husband had no obligation that could support a modification\"",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | 1,296,469 | b |
ORS 107.135(l)(a) provides, in part, that a court may "[s]et aside, alter or modify so much of the decree as may provide * * * for the support of a party * * The key phrase in the statute is the present tense verb phrase "may provide." That phrase implies that there must be an existing support obligation at the time that the court exercises its authority to modify. Our case law supports that interpretation of the statutory scheme. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that, \"[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]\" and after that date \"husband had no obligation that could support a modification\"",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "98 Or App 83, 87",
"parenthetical": "holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | 1,296,469 | a |
ORS 107.135(l)(a) provides, in part, that a court may "[s]et aside, alter or modify so much of the decree as may provide * * * for the support of a party * * The key phrase in the statute is the present tense verb phrase "may provide." That phrase implies that there must be an existing support obligation at the time that the court exercises its authority to modify. Our case law supports that interpretation of the statutory scheme. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that, \"[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]\" and after that date \"husband had no obligation that could support a modification\"",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | 1,296,469 | a |
ORS 107.135(l)(a) provides, in part, that a court may "[s]et aside, alter or modify so much of the decree as may provide * * * for the support of a party * * The key phrase in the statute is the present tense verb phrase "may provide." That phrase implies that there must be an existing support obligation at the time that the court exercises its authority to modify. Our case law supports that interpretation of the statutory scheme. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that, \"[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]\" and after that date \"husband had no obligation that could support a modification\"",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | 1,296,469 | a |
ORS 107.135(l)(a) provides, in part, that a court may "[s]et aside, alter or modify so much of the decree as may provide * * * for the support of a party * * The key phrase in the statute is the present tense verb phrase "may provide." That phrase implies that there must be an existing support obligation at the time that the court exercises its authority to modify. Our case law supports that interpretation of the statutory scheme. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that, \"[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]\" and after that date \"husband had no obligation that could support a modification\"",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment",
"sentence": "See Wrench and Wrench, 98 Or App 352, 353, 779 P2d 195, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that, “[a]s with a promissory note, when the final payment was made [on a support judgment], the obligation was discharged[,]” and after that date “husband had no obligation that could support a modification”); see also Woita and Woita, 98 Or App 83, 87, 778 P2d 504, rev den, 308 Or 608 (1989) (holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order); Park and Park, 43 Or App 367, 602 P2d 1123 (1979), rev den, 288 Or 335 (1980) (holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment)."
} | 1,296,469 | a |
Appellants contend that the statutes relative to a safe workplace, which they allege DISD violated, implicitly waive DISD's immunity from suit. A so-called "implicit waiver" of sovereign immunity arises when the statute at issue would be meaningless if immunity was not waived thereby. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": "893 S.W.2d 432, 446",
"parenthetical": "Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act waives immunity from suit in actions brought to construe legislative pronouncements",
"sentence": "Lab.Code Ann. § 504.002 (Vernon Supp.2004)] which expressly incorporates anti-retaliation law); Alamo Community College Dist. v. Obayashi Corp., 980 S.W.2d 745, 747-48 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) (ch. 130 of Education Code); see also Tex. Educ. Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432, 446 (Tex.1994) (Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act waives immunity from suit in actions brought to construe legislative pronouncements); but see Tex. Nat. Resource Conservation Commn. v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 855-56 (Tex.2002) (UDJA does not waive immunity from suit in actions “against state officials seeking to establish a contract’s validity, to enforce performance under a contract, or to impose contractual liabilities”)."
} | {
"signal": "but see",
"identifier": "74 S.W.3d 849, 855-56",
"parenthetical": "UDJA does not waive immunity from suit in actions \"against state officials seeking to establish a contract's validity, to enforce performance under a contract, or to impose contractual liabilities\"",
"sentence": "Lab.Code Ann. § 504.002 (Vernon Supp.2004)] which expressly incorporates anti-retaliation law); Alamo Community College Dist. v. Obayashi Corp., 980 S.W.2d 745, 747-48 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) (ch. 130 of Education Code); see also Tex. Educ. Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432, 446 (Tex.1994) (Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act waives immunity from suit in actions brought to construe legislative pronouncements); but see Tex. Nat. Resource Conservation Commn. v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 855-56 (Tex.2002) (UDJA does not waive immunity from suit in actions “against state officials seeking to establish a contract’s validity, to enforce performance under a contract, or to impose contractual liabilities”)."
} | 9,237,977 | a |
Finally, with respect to the receipt statute in particular, the Court also notes that those courts to address vagueness challenges to this statute have found that it is not unconstitutionally vague. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "486 F.3d 1004, 1009",
"parenthetical": "analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had \"not established that SS 2252A(a",
"sentence": "United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1052, 128 S.Ct. 682, 169 L.Ed.2d 533 (2007) (analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had “not established that § 2252A(a)(2) fails either the ‘notice’ or ‘arbitrary enforcement’ tests for unconstitutional vagueness.”); United States v. Powers, No. 07-CR-103A, 2009 WL 2601103, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Marcus, 193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (finding that the receipt statute “clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed”); cf. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12 (11th Cir.2009) (finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) were not unconstitutionally vague on their face because the FCRA “clearly definefd]” the prohibited conduct and did not give law enforcement, courts, or juries the ability to apply the provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12",
"parenthetical": "finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (\"FCRA\"",
"sentence": "United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1052, 128 S.Ct. 682, 169 L.Ed.2d 533 (2007) (analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had “not established that § 2252A(a)(2) fails either the ‘notice’ or ‘arbitrary enforcement’ tests for unconstitutional vagueness.”); United States v. Powers, No. 07-CR-103A, 2009 WL 2601103, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Marcus, 193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (finding that the receipt statute “clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed”); cf. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12 (11th Cir.2009) (finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) were not unconstitutionally vague on their face because the FCRA “clearly definefd]” the prohibited conduct and did not give law enforcement, courts, or juries the ability to apply the provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner)."
} | 4,204,616 | a |
Finally, with respect to the receipt statute in particular, the Court also notes that those courts to address vagueness challenges to this statute have found that it is not unconstitutionally vague. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had \"not established that SS 2252A(a)(2) fails either the 'notice' or 'arbitrary enforcement' tests for unconstitutional vagueness.\"",
"sentence": "United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1052, 128 S.Ct. 682, 169 L.Ed.2d 533 (2007) (analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had “not established that § 2252A(a)(2) fails either the ‘notice’ or ‘arbitrary enforcement’ tests for unconstitutional vagueness.”); United States v. Powers, No. 07-CR-103A, 2009 WL 2601103, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Marcus, 193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (finding that the receipt statute “clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed”); cf. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12 (11th Cir.2009) (finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) were not unconstitutionally vague on their face because the FCRA “clearly definefd]” the prohibited conduct and did not give law enforcement, courts, or juries the ability to apply the provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12",
"parenthetical": "finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (\"FCRA\"",
"sentence": "United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1052, 128 S.Ct. 682, 169 L.Ed.2d 533 (2007) (analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had “not established that § 2252A(a)(2) fails either the ‘notice’ or ‘arbitrary enforcement’ tests for unconstitutional vagueness.”); United States v. Powers, No. 07-CR-103A, 2009 WL 2601103, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Marcus, 193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (finding that the receipt statute “clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed”); cf. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12 (11th Cir.2009) (finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) were not unconstitutionally vague on their face because the FCRA “clearly definefd]” the prohibited conduct and did not give law enforcement, courts, or juries the ability to apply the provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner)."
} | 4,204,616 | a |
Finally, with respect to the receipt statute in particular, the Court also notes that those courts to address vagueness challenges to this statute have found that it is not unconstitutionally vague. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had \"not established that SS 2252A(a)(2) fails either the 'notice' or 'arbitrary enforcement' tests for unconstitutional vagueness.\"",
"sentence": "United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1052, 128 S.Ct. 682, 169 L.Ed.2d 533 (2007) (analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had “not established that § 2252A(a)(2) fails either the ‘notice’ or ‘arbitrary enforcement’ tests for unconstitutional vagueness.”); United States v. Powers, No. 07-CR-103A, 2009 WL 2601103, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Marcus, 193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (finding that the receipt statute “clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed”); cf. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12 (11th Cir.2009) (finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) were not unconstitutionally vague on their face because the FCRA “clearly definefd]” the prohibited conduct and did not give law enforcement, courts, or juries the ability to apply the provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12",
"parenthetical": "finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (\"FCRA\"",
"sentence": "United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1052, 128 S.Ct. 682, 169 L.Ed.2d 533 (2007) (analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had “not established that § 2252A(a)(2) fails either the ‘notice’ or ‘arbitrary enforcement’ tests for unconstitutional vagueness.”); United States v. Powers, No. 07-CR-103A, 2009 WL 2601103, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Marcus, 193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (finding that the receipt statute “clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed”); cf. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12 (11th Cir.2009) (finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) were not unconstitutionally vague on their face because the FCRA “clearly definefd]” the prohibited conduct and did not give law enforcement, courts, or juries the ability to apply the provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner)."
} | 4,204,616 | a |
Finally, with respect to the receipt statute in particular, the Court also notes that those courts to address vagueness challenges to this statute have found that it is not unconstitutionally vague. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12",
"parenthetical": "finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (\"FCRA\"",
"sentence": "United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1052, 128 S.Ct. 682, 169 L.Ed.2d 533 (2007) (analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had “not established that § 2252A(a)(2) fails either the ‘notice’ or ‘arbitrary enforcement’ tests for unconstitutional vagueness.”); United States v. Powers, No. 07-CR-103A, 2009 WL 2601103, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Marcus, 193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (finding that the receipt statute “clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed”); cf. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12 (11th Cir.2009) (finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) were not unconstitutionally vague on their face because the FCRA “clearly definefd]” the prohibited conduct and did not give law enforcement, courts, or juries the ability to apply the provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had \"not established that SS 2252A(a)(2) fails either the 'notice' or 'arbitrary enforcement' tests for unconstitutional vagueness.\"",
"sentence": "United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1052, 128 S.Ct. 682, 169 L.Ed.2d 533 (2007) (analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had “not established that § 2252A(a)(2) fails either the ‘notice’ or ‘arbitrary enforcement’ tests for unconstitutional vagueness.”); United States v. Powers, No. 07-CR-103A, 2009 WL 2601103, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Marcus, 193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (finding that the receipt statute “clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed”); cf. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12 (11th Cir.2009) (finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) were not unconstitutionally vague on their face because the FCRA “clearly definefd]” the prohibited conduct and did not give law enforcement, courts, or juries the ability to apply the provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner)."
} | 4,204,616 | b |
Finally, with respect to the receipt statute in particular, the Court also notes that those courts to address vagueness challenges to this statute have found that it is not unconstitutionally vague. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "2009 WL 2601103, at *3",
"parenthetical": "finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague",
"sentence": "United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1052, 128 S.Ct. 682, 169 L.Ed.2d 533 (2007) (analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had “not established that § 2252A(a)(2) fails either the ‘notice’ or ‘arbitrary enforcement’ tests for unconstitutional vagueness.”); United States v. Powers, No. 07-CR-103A, 2009 WL 2601103, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Marcus, 193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (finding that the receipt statute “clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed”); cf. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12 (11th Cir.2009) (finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) were not unconstitutionally vague on their face because the FCRA “clearly definefd]” the prohibited conduct and did not give law enforcement, courts, or juries the ability to apply the provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12",
"parenthetical": "finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (\"FCRA\"",
"sentence": "United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1052, 128 S.Ct. 682, 169 L.Ed.2d 533 (2007) (analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had “not established that § 2252A(a)(2) fails either the ‘notice’ or ‘arbitrary enforcement’ tests for unconstitutional vagueness.”); United States v. Powers, No. 07-CR-103A, 2009 WL 2601103, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Marcus, 193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (finding that the receipt statute “clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed”); cf. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12 (11th Cir.2009) (finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) were not unconstitutionally vague on their face because the FCRA “clearly definefd]” the prohibited conduct and did not give law enforcement, courts, or juries the ability to apply the provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner)."
} | 4,204,616 | a |
Finally, with respect to the receipt statute in particular, the Court also notes that those courts to address vagueness challenges to this statute have found that it is not unconstitutionally vague. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58",
"parenthetical": "finding that the receipt statute \"clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed\"",
"sentence": "United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1052, 128 S.Ct. 682, 169 L.Ed.2d 533 (2007) (analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had “not established that § 2252A(a)(2) fails either the ‘notice’ or ‘arbitrary enforcement’ tests for unconstitutional vagueness.”); United States v. Powers, No. 07-CR-103A, 2009 WL 2601103, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Marcus, 193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (finding that the receipt statute “clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed”); cf. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12 (11th Cir.2009) (finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) were not unconstitutionally vague on their face because the FCRA “clearly definefd]” the prohibited conduct and did not give law enforcement, courts, or juries the ability to apply the provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12",
"parenthetical": "finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (\"FCRA\"",
"sentence": "United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir.2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1052, 128 S.Ct. 682, 169 L.Ed.2d 533 (2007) (analyzing the plain language of the receipt statute and finding that the defendant had “not established that § 2252A(a)(2) fails either the ‘notice’ or ‘arbitrary enforcement’ tests for unconstitutional vagueness.”); United States v. Powers, No. 07-CR-103A, 2009 WL 2601103, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2009) (finding the reasoning in Watzman persuasive and concluding that receipt statute was not unconstitutionally vague); United States v. Marcus, 193 F.Supp.2d 552, 557-58 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (finding that the receipt statute “clearly apprises indi viduals of the nature of the conduct proscribed”); cf. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1310-12 (11th Cir.2009) (finding that certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) were not unconstitutionally vague on their face because the FCRA “clearly definefd]” the prohibited conduct and did not give law enforcement, courts, or juries the ability to apply the provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner)."
} | 4,204,616 | a |
We conclude that the mandatory nature of SS 44-53-370(e)(2)(a)(l) is clear under the plain meaning of the words employed, notwithstanding the fact that the word "mandatory" is only used to describe the sentence for a third and subsequent offense. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "276 S.C. 444, 446",
"parenthetical": "finding statute describing possible prison term as \"not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years\" prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years",
"sentence": "See State v. Wilson, 315 S.C. 289, 294, 433 S.E.2d 864, 867 (1993) (stating the precise quantity of drugs involved in trafficking in cocaine in violation of § 44-53-370(e)(2), “is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed (sic)”); cf. State v. De La Cruz, 302 S.C. 13, 16, n. 4, 393 S.E.2d 184, 186, n. 4 (1990) (noting Johnson case “dealt with a mandatory minimum sentence”); State v. Johnson, 276 S.C. 444, 446, 279 S.E.2d 606, 607 (1981) (finding statute describing possible prison term as “not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years” prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "315 S.C. 289, 294",
"parenthetical": "stating the precise quantity of drugs involved in trafficking in cocaine in violation of SS 44-53-370(e)(2), \"is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed (sic)\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Wilson, 315 S.C. 289, 294, 433 S.E.2d 864, 867 (1993) (stating the precise quantity of drugs involved in trafficking in cocaine in violation of § 44-53-370(e)(2), “is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed (sic)”); cf. State v. De La Cruz, 302 S.C. 13, 16, n. 4, 393 S.E.2d 184, 186, n. 4 (1990) (noting Johnson case “dealt with a mandatory minimum sentence”); State v. Johnson, 276 S.C. 444, 446, 279 S.E.2d 606, 607 (1981) (finding statute describing possible prison term as “not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years” prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years)."
} | 193,118 | b |
We conclude that the mandatory nature of SS 44-53-370(e)(2)(a)(l) is clear under the plain meaning of the words employed, notwithstanding the fact that the word "mandatory" is only used to describe the sentence for a third and subsequent offense. | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "279 S.E.2d 606, 607",
"parenthetical": "finding statute describing possible prison term as \"not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years\" prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years",
"sentence": "See State v. Wilson, 315 S.C. 289, 294, 433 S.E.2d 864, 867 (1993) (stating the precise quantity of drugs involved in trafficking in cocaine in violation of § 44-53-370(e)(2), “is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed (sic)”); cf. State v. De La Cruz, 302 S.C. 13, 16, n. 4, 393 S.E.2d 184, 186, n. 4 (1990) (noting Johnson case “dealt with a mandatory minimum sentence”); State v. Johnson, 276 S.C. 444, 446, 279 S.E.2d 606, 607 (1981) (finding statute describing possible prison term as “not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years” prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years)."
} | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "315 S.C. 289, 294",
"parenthetical": "stating the precise quantity of drugs involved in trafficking in cocaine in violation of SS 44-53-370(e)(2), \"is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed (sic)\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Wilson, 315 S.C. 289, 294, 433 S.E.2d 864, 867 (1993) (stating the precise quantity of drugs involved in trafficking in cocaine in violation of § 44-53-370(e)(2), “is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed (sic)”); cf. State v. De La Cruz, 302 S.C. 13, 16, n. 4, 393 S.E.2d 184, 186, n. 4 (1990) (noting Johnson case “dealt with a mandatory minimum sentence”); State v. Johnson, 276 S.C. 444, 446, 279 S.E.2d 606, 607 (1981) (finding statute describing possible prison term as “not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years” prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years)."
} | 193,118 | b |
We conclude that the mandatory nature of SS 44-53-370(e)(2)(a)(l) is clear under the plain meaning of the words employed, notwithstanding the fact that the word "mandatory" is only used to describe the sentence for a third and subsequent offense. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 S.E.2d 864, 867",
"parenthetical": "stating the precise quantity of drugs involved in trafficking in cocaine in violation of SS 44-53-370(e)(2), \"is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed (sic)\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Wilson, 315 S.C. 289, 294, 433 S.E.2d 864, 867 (1993) (stating the precise quantity of drugs involved in trafficking in cocaine in violation of § 44-53-370(e)(2), “is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed (sic)”); cf. State v. De La Cruz, 302 S.C. 13, 16, n. 4, 393 S.E.2d 184, 186, n. 4 (1990) (noting Johnson case “dealt with a mandatory minimum sentence”); State v. Johnson, 276 S.C. 444, 446, 279 S.E.2d 606, 607 (1981) (finding statute describing possible prison term as “not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years” prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "276 S.C. 444, 446",
"parenthetical": "finding statute describing possible prison term as \"not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years\" prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years",
"sentence": "See State v. Wilson, 315 S.C. 289, 294, 433 S.E.2d 864, 867 (1993) (stating the precise quantity of drugs involved in trafficking in cocaine in violation of § 44-53-370(e)(2), “is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed (sic)”); cf. State v. De La Cruz, 302 S.C. 13, 16, n. 4, 393 S.E.2d 184, 186, n. 4 (1990) (noting Johnson case “dealt with a mandatory minimum sentence”); State v. Johnson, 276 S.C. 444, 446, 279 S.E.2d 606, 607 (1981) (finding statute describing possible prison term as “not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years” prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years)."
} | 193,118 | a |
We conclude that the mandatory nature of SS 44-53-370(e)(2)(a)(l) is clear under the plain meaning of the words employed, notwithstanding the fact that the word "mandatory" is only used to describe the sentence for a third and subsequent offense. | {
"signal": "see",
"identifier": "433 S.E.2d 864, 867",
"parenthetical": "stating the precise quantity of drugs involved in trafficking in cocaine in violation of SS 44-53-370(e)(2), \"is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed (sic)\"",
"sentence": "See State v. Wilson, 315 S.C. 289, 294, 433 S.E.2d 864, 867 (1993) (stating the precise quantity of drugs involved in trafficking in cocaine in violation of § 44-53-370(e)(2), “is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed (sic)”); cf. State v. De La Cruz, 302 S.C. 13, 16, n. 4, 393 S.E.2d 184, 186, n. 4 (1990) (noting Johnson case “dealt with a mandatory minimum sentence”); State v. Johnson, 276 S.C. 444, 446, 279 S.E.2d 606, 607 (1981) (finding statute describing possible prison term as “not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years” prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years)."
} | {
"signal": "cf.",
"identifier": "279 S.E.2d 606, 607",
"parenthetical": "finding statute describing possible prison term as \"not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years\" prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years",
"sentence": "See State v. Wilson, 315 S.C. 289, 294, 433 S.E.2d 864, 867 (1993) (stating the precise quantity of drugs involved in trafficking in cocaine in violation of § 44-53-370(e)(2), “is pertinent, not to the classification of trafficking, but to the minimum penalty proscribed (sic)”); cf. State v. De La Cruz, 302 S.C. 13, 16, n. 4, 393 S.E.2d 184, 186, n. 4 (1990) (noting Johnson case “dealt with a mandatory minimum sentence”); State v. Johnson, 276 S.C. 444, 446, 279 S.E.2d 606, 607 (1981) (finding statute describing possible prison term as “not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years” prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years)."
} | 193,118 | a |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "19 Ill.Dec. 311, 311",
"parenthetical": "where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | 10,382,507 | b |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "19 Ill.Dec. 311, 311",
"parenthetical": "where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | 10,382,507 | b |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "378 N.E.2d 1186, 1186",
"parenthetical": "where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | 10,382,507 | b |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "378 N.E.2d 1186, 1186",
"parenthetical": "where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | 10,382,507 | a |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432",
"parenthetical": "where husband's secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | 10,382,507 | a |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": "77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432",
"parenthetical": "where husband's secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | 10,382,507 | a |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband's secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | 10,382,507 | b |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband's secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | 10,382,507 | a |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | 10,382,507 | b |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | 10,382,507 | b |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | 10,382,507 | a |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | 10,382,507 | b |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | 10,382,507 | a |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | 10,382,507 | b |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | 10,382,507 | b |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | 10,382,507 | b |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | 10,382,507 | a |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | 10,382,507 | a |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | 10,382,507 | b |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | 10,382,507 | b |
In determining fraud, courts have adopted a subjective standard and have considered the facts of the particular marriage. | {
"signal": "no signal",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife",
"sentence": "Wolfe, 19 Ill.Dec. at 311, 378 N.E.2d at 1186 (where husband concealed his prior marital history from Roman Catholic wife); Costello, 282 A.2d 432 (where husband omitted to tell wife of his heroin addiction); Lamberti v. Lamberti, 77 Cal.Rptr. 430, 432, 272 Cal.App.2d 482 (1969) (where husband’s secret intent in marrying was to acquire an advantageous alien status and where he falsely promised to go through a subsequent religious ceremony); Parks v. Parks, 418 S.W.2d 726 (Ky.1967) (where wife falsely represented at time of marriage that she was pregnant); Kober v. Kober, 16 N.Y.2d 191, 211 N.E.2d 817, 264 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1965) (where husband failed to disclose his extreme anti-Semitism to wife); Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910 (1960) (where wife secretly intended not to live with husband and not to adopt his name); Osborne v. Osborne, 134 A.2d 438 (D.C.1957) (where husband secretly intended not to live with his wife); Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568, 292 P.2d 274, 277 (1956) (where wife secretly intended not to consummate the marriage); Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal. App.2d 794, 128 P.2d 376, 377 (1942) (where wife did not disclose her infertility); Rubman v. Rubman, 140 Misc. 658, 251 N.Y.S. 474 (1931) (where husband falsely told wife he loved her and did not disclose that real reason for marriage was to avoid deportation)."
} | {
"signal": "see also",
"identifier": null,
"parenthetical": "where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict",
"sentence": "See also Leventhal v. Liberman, 262 N.Y. 209, 186 N.E. 675 (1933) (where husband did not disclose he had tuberculosis and was a narcotics addict)."
} | 10,382,507 | a |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.