Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

People v. Malausky

Rochester City Court

Decided January 28, 1985PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

William H. Bristol, J.

Important legal principles are often hidden in “unimportant” criminal charges. This case is such an example. Enshrouded within the cloak of criminal procedure technicalities that form the instant motion there exists a set of fundamental legal interests in conflict with each other: An individual’s right to say what is on his or her mind versus an individual’s right to be left alone.1 This court must decide whether the instant criminal information states facts which could show that the defendant exceeded his right to free speech and, by his words,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. People v. CaseNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
  3. People v. WoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1960
  4. People v. DittaNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. People v. HallNew York Court of Appeals · 1979

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Bachowski v. SalamoneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Jones v. RoperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  3. People v. YablovCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2000
  4. People v. LivioNassau County District Court · 2000
  5. People v. HoganCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1997

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API