Legal Opinion
State v. Andriulaitis
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided November 8, 2016No. AC38367PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFlynn, J.
In State v. Indrisano , 228 Conn. 795 , 640 A.2d 986 (1994), our Supreme Court applied an interpretive gloss to certain provisions of the disorderly conduct statute, General Statutes § 53a-182, 1 in order to preserve their constitutionality. At issue in this appeal is the gloss providing that the phrase "offensive or disorderly conduct" in § 53a-182 (a) (2) means "conduct that is grossly offensive, under contemporary community standards, to a person who actually overhears it or sees it." Id., at 818, 640 A.2d 986 . The defendant, William Andriulaitis, appeals from the judgment of conviction,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- State v. IndrisanoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Elm City Cheese Co. v. FedericoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, Schedule No. 2102Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- State v. CECIL J.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Davis v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020
- State v. BagnaschiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018
- State v. O'DonnellConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
- State v. TaverasConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018
- State v. CreweConnecticut Appellate Court · 2019
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.