Schnabel v. Tyler, 632 A.2d 708 (Conn. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Schnabel v. Tyler, 632 A.2d 708 (Conn. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. DeMasi (connappct, 1994-04-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. DeMasi
Conn. App. Ct. · 1994 · confidence medium
“Thus, his acquiescence to the judge’s presiding prohibits our review of his claim on appeal.” Id., 715.
cited Cited "see" State v. Hargett
Conn. App. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Harrison, 32 Conn. App. 687, 702 , 631 A.2d 324 , cert. denied, 227 Conn. 932 , 632 A.2d 708 (1993).
cited Cited "see" State v. Cruz
Conn. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Harrison, 32 Conn. App. 687, 699 , 631 A.2d 324 , cert. denied, 227 Conn. 932 , 632 A.2d 708 (1993).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Rosedom
Conn. App. Ct. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schnabel v. Tyler, 32 Conn. App. 704, 712 , 630 A.2d 1361 , cert. granted, 227 Conn. 932 , 632 A.2d 708 (1993); see also Bell Food Services, Inc. v. Sherbacow, 217 Conn. 476, 490 , 586 A.2d 1157 (1991).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Tate
Conn. App. Ct. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
State v. Paladino, 19 Conn. App. 576, 578 , 563 A.2d 321 (1989); see also State v. Harrison, 32 Conn. App. 687, 700 , 631 A.2d 324 , cert. denied, 227 Conn. 932 , 632 A.2d 708 (1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Philip H. Schnabel
v.
Clyde R. Tyler
SC 14853.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 15, 1993.
632 A.2d 708
Elliot B. Spector, in support of the petition., Kathleen Eldergill, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 704 (AC 10937), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court had been correct in ruling that the qualified immunity defense under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was not available to the plaintiff?

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court had correctly excluded the evidence[*933] offered by the plaintiff on the issue of the plaintiffs qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14853. Decided October 15, 1993 Elliot B. Spector, in support of the petition. Kathleen Eldergill, in opposition.