Legal Opinion
Mayock v. Martin
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 23, 1968PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRyan, J.
In this application for a writ of habeas corpus, the plaintiff claims that his confinement in the Norwich State Hospital is illegal because his present mental condition does not require, nor does it legally justify, his involuntary confinement or custodial care. From the judgment dismissing the writ, the plaintiff has appealed.
The few corrections to which the plaintiff has shown himself entitled are incorporated in the following statement of facts found by the trial court: The plaintiff was first confined to the Norwich State Hospital in October, 1943, and was released in January, 1944. On…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Reynolds v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Torcaso v. WatkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Davis v. BeasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Johnston Jewels, Ltd. v. LeonardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
3Cited by11 opinions
- Covino v. PfefferSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Logan v. ArafehDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1972
- Hames v. HamesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- State v. BoucherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Hopkins v. Hamden Board of EducationConnecticut Superior Court · 1971
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.