green
Positive treatment
6.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
D. J. v. F. D.
Equities must be considered and, if established, must be liquidated before distribution is ordered.’’ Levay v. Levay, 137 Conn. 92, 96 , 75 A.2d 400 (1950); see Hackett v. Hackett, 42 Conn. Supp. 36, 40 , 598 A.2d 1112 (1990), aff’d, 26 Conn. App. 149 , 598 A.2d 1103 (1991), cert. denied, 221 Conn. 905 , 600 A.2d 1359 (1992); see also, e.g., Cavanagh v. Richichi, supra, 212 Conn. App. 413 (‘‘[b]ecause a partition action is an equi- table action, the court has the authority to determine an unequal award on the basis of the evidence presented, including the value of the property and th…
cited
Cited "see"
Franko v. Commissioner of Correction
See Giannotti v. Warden, 26 Conn.App. 125 , 130 n. 5, 599 A.2d 26 (1991), cert. denied, 221 Conn. 905 , 600 A.2d 1359 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction
See Giannotti v. Warden, 26 Conn. App. 125, 129 , 599 A.2d 26 (1991), cert. denied, 221 Conn. 905 , 600 A.2d 1359 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction
See Giannotti v. Warden, 26 Conn. App. 125, 128 , 599 A.2d 26 (1991), cert. denied, 221 Conn. 905 , 600 A.2d 1359 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction
See Giannotti v. Warden, 26 Conn. App. 125 , 126 n.1, 599 A.2d 26 (1991) (because petitioner never alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim in habeas petition, court refused to review unarticulated claim raised for first time on appeal), cert. denied, 221 Conn. 905 , 600 A.2d 1359 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Guadalupe v. Commissioner of Correction
See Giannotti v. Warden, 26 Conn. App. 125 , 599 A.2d 26 (1991), cert. denied, 221 Conn. 905 , 600 A.2d 1359 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Foreshaw v. Commissioner of Correction
See Giannotti v. Warden, 26 Conn. App. 125 , 126 n.1, 599 A.2d 26 (1991), cert. denied, 221 Conn. 905 , 600 A.2d 1359 (1992); Copeland v. Warden, 26 Conn. App. 10, 13-14 , 596 A.2d 477 (1991), aff'd, 225 Conn. 46 , 621 A.2d 1311 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cavanagh v. Richichi
As our Supreme Court has stated, ‘‘it is not always true that each tenant in common or joint tenant is entitled to equal shares in the real estate.’’ Fernandes v. Rodriguez, supra, 255 Conn. 60 . ‘‘Because a partition action is an equitable action, the court has the authority to determine an unequal award on the basis of the evidence presented, including the value of the property and the equitable interests of the parties.’’ Rissolo v. Betts Island Oyster Farms, LLC, supra, 353–54; see also Levay v. Levay, 137 Conn. 92, 96 , 75 A.2d 400 (1950) (‘‘[a]lthough each party was…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fernandes v. Rodriguez
Equities must be considered and, if established, must be liquidated before distribution is ordered.); see also Hackett v. Hackett, 42 Conn. Sup. 36, 40 , 598 A.2d 1112 (1990), aff'd, 26 Conn. App. 149 , 598 A.2d 1103 (1991), cert. denied, 221 Conn. 905 , 600 A.2d 1359 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fernandes v. Rodriguez
Equities must be considered and, if established, must be liquidated before distribution is ordered.”); see also Hackett v. Hackett, 42 Conn. Sup. 36, 40 , 598 A.2d 1112 (1990), aff'd, 26 Conn. App. 149 , 598 A.2d 1103 (1991), cert. denied, 221 Conn. 905 , 600 A.2d 1359 (1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harry Hyatt
v.
City of Milford
v.
City of Milford
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 7, 1992.
Michael C. Sohon, in support of the petition., Marilyn J. Lipton, city attorney, in opposition.
Published
The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 26 Conn. App. 194, is granted, limited to the following issues:
“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies?
“2. Does General Statutes § 31-315 vest jurisdiction in the worker’s compensation commissioner to (a) interpret an award or (b) to modify an award with respect to payments due thereunder after the period for making such payments has expired?”