Mary Gormley v. Director, Connecticut State Department of Probation and Attorney General of the State of Connecticut
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
*940TIMBERS, Circuit Judge:
One of the symptoms of a sick segment of our society is the increasing frequency with which the telephone is used to harass and annoy others. Many states, as well as the federal government, have enacted statutes which make that conduct a criminal offense.
Such a statute — the Connecticut telephone harassment statute1 — is before us on the instant appeal from a judgment entered in the District of Connecticut denying appellant Mary Gormley’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The questions presented are whether that statute, under which appellant was convicted in the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Gooding v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Bankers Trust Co. v. MallisSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Bolles v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1975
- United States v. Franklin D. LampleyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. SinghCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2005
- Commonwealth v. HendricksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Perkins v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1991
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1985
- United States v. Popa, Ion CornelCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1999
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.