green
Positive treatment
3.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bell
See State v. Smith, 10 Conn. App. 624, 628 , 525 A.2d 116 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 809 , 528 A.2d 1156 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lawrence v. Lawrence
(2×)
See Goold v. Goold, 11 Conn. App. 268, 277 , 527 A.2d 696 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 810 , 528 A.2d 1156 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Montoya v. Montoya
See Goold v. Goold, 11 Conn. App. 268, 288 , 527 A.2d 696 (parties’ separation agreement provided for payment of counsel fees), cert. denied, 204 Conn. 810 , 528 A.2d 1156 (1987); see also Albrecht v. Albrecht, supra, 158 (same).
cited
Cited "see"
Velazquez v. Marine Midland Automotive Financial Corp.
See State v. Smith, 10 Conn. App. 624, 635 , 525 A.2d 116 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 809 , 528 A.2d 1156 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Eichstedt
Failure to research the law or formulate sufficient legal argument; see State v. Smith, 10 Conn. App. 624, 635 , 525 A.2d 116 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 809 , 528 A.2d 1156 (1987); or the making of bare assertions of error without legal citations; see State v. Knighton, 7 Conn. App. 223, 226 , 508 A.2d 772 (1986); or failure to relate the facts of the case to the claims of law or present the court “with any legal analysis whatsoever”; see State v. Nelson, 17 Conn. App. 556, 576 , 555 A.2d 426 (1989); precludes this court from a meaningful appellate review.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Coleman
See State v. Smith, 10 Conn. App. 624 , 639 n.5, 525 A.2d 116 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 809 , 528 A.2d 1156 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fox v. Fox, No. Fa90-0098219 (May 3, 2002)
See, e.g., Goold v. Goold , 11 Conn. App. 268 , 270-71 , 527 A.2d 696 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 810 , 528 A.2d 1156 (1987) (child support was ordered to be paid "until said child dies, marries, becomes wholly self-supporting, or attains the age of 21 years. . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bombero v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Id.; see also Cristofaro v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 11 Conn. App. 260, 263-64 , 527 A.2d 255 , cert. denied, 204 Conn. 810 , 528 A.2d 1156 (1987) (nonconstitutional challenge to validity of subdivision regulation should have been made by way of declaratory judgment action, rather than by appeal from denial of subdivision application).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. One 1981 BMW Automobile
See, e.g., State v. Hudson, 14 Conn. App. 463, 471 . n.4, 541 A.2d 534 (1988); White Oak Corporation v. Department of Consumer Protection, 12 Conn. App. 251 , 257 n.11, 530 A.2d 641 (1987); see also Cristofaro v. Planning & Zon ing Commission, 11 Conn. App. 260, 265-66 , 527 A.2d 255 (Bieluch, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 204 Conn. 810 , 528 A.2d 1156 (1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas
v.
Cristofaro v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Burlington
v.
Cristofaro v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Burlington
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 16, 1987.
Edward F. Scully, in support of the petition., Charles W. Bauer, in opposition.
Published
The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 11 Conn. App. 260, is denied.