Here, appellants, the State and the children, sought review of a judgment from the circuit court, which found in favor of respondents, a mother and father, in the State’s action to terminate their parental rights. The Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment terminating the parental rights of father and mother.
Here, the relator-wife sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel defendant circuit court judge to conduct a hearing on her petition for a restraining order and to prevent abuse, pursuant to the Oregon Abuse Prevention Act, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 107.700-107.730. The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a peremptory writ, requiring the judge to conduct forthwith a hearing on the wife’s petition for a restraining order and to prevent abuse and to determine whether there existed an immediate and present danger of abuse to the wife.
In the case State v. Little, 127 Conn. App. 336 (2011), the defendant was convicted of failing to comply with Connecticut’s sex offender registration requirements under General Statutes § 54-252(a), after he failed to return a verification form and update his address in a timely manner.
In State v. Planned Parenthood, 171 P.3d 577 (Alaska 2007), the Alaska Supreme Court struck down the state's Parental Consent Act, which forced minors to obtain parental consent before seeking an abortion, on the grounds that it violated the privacy protection guaranteed by the Alaska Constitution.
State v Swanson was a Superior Court matter (trial court), not appellate authority. The case is generally referenced as a resource but does not carry the same precedential weight as Connecticut appellate or supreme court rulings.
Defendant appealed a conviction of violating a no-contact order, resulting in imprisonment for thirty months. The defendant’s ex-wife had obtained a protective order, which the defendant violated. Specifically, the defendant called his ex-wife to arrange to visit their daughter. Suspecting that he was drunk, she asked that he call the next day, but the defendant arrived ten to fifteen minutes later and was let into the house from the ex-wife’s roommate’s daughter. The ex-wife did not see the defendant in the house but heard his voice, and called the police.
After attempting to leave a house, a woman was held against her will for approximately 4 to 5 hours and was repeatedly sexually assaulted. The man was subsequently convicted of kidnapping and sexual assault; however, on appeal, the kidnapping conviction was overturned as the confinement was viewed as “incidental” to the sexual assaults. In State v. Cruz-Pena, 243 N.J. 342 (2020) the New Jersey Supreme Court reinstated the conviction for kidnapping.
In State v. Cuni, 159 N.J. 584 (1999), the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the question of how the State’s rape-shield law applies when the central issue is the victim’s capacity to give consent, rather than mere prior sexual history. A delivery worker was convicted of sexual assault against a woman with a mental disability.
Doyle was subject to a domestic abuse protection order for Linda Doyle, his wife. The “no contact” provision of the order prohibited Doyle from “telephoning, contacting, or otherwise communicating with [Linda]” for a period of 1 year. After Doyle was escorted to a hospital by law enforcement on February 14, 2008, Doyle evaded the monitoring of police officers and directed a nurse to contact his wife. The call was placed and Linda was indeed reached. Linda hung up after a brief conversation with the nurse.
