green
Positive treatment
3.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Huckaby
See State v. Phidd, 42 Conn. App. 17, 27 , 681 A.2d 310 , cert. denied, 238 Conn. 907 , 679 A.2d 2 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1108 , 117 S. Ct. 1115 , 137 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Clue v. Commissioner of Correction
In the [habeas] court’s choice among . . . possible remedies, the decisive factor must be the vindi- cation of the [petitioner’s] constitutional rights.’’ (Cita- tions omitted; footnote added; footnote omitted.) Gaines v. Manson, 194 Conn. 510 , 528–29, 481 A.2d 1084 (1984); see also State v. Phidd, 42 Conn. App. 17, 28 , 681 A.2d 310 (‘‘[t]he statutory language ‘dispose of the case as law and justice require’ gives the habeas court the power to conform a remedy to the particular facts’’), cert. denied, 238 Conn. 907 , 679 A.2d 2 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1108 , 117 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction
James L. v. Commissioner of Correction, 245 Conn. 132, 148 , 712 A.2d 947 (1998), quoting Gaines v. Manson, 194 Conn. 510, 517-18 , 481 A.2d 1084 (1984) (“[p]roof of unconstitutional impairment of the right to appeal empowers a court to fashion an order conditionally discharging the petitioner or otherwise fashioning the appropriate relief, short of immediate release, to which the petitioner may be entitled” [internal quotation marks omitted]); Fredericks v. Reincke, 152 Conn. 501, 508 , 208 A.2d 756 (1965) (permitting late appeal upon establishment of federal constitutional impairment to …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Martin v. Martin
Co., 136 Conn. 234, 236 , 70 A.2d 126 (1949).” Central Connecticut Teachers Federal Credit Union v. Grant, 27 Conn. App. 435, 438 , 606 A.2d 729 (1992); see also State v. Phidd, 42 Conn. App. 17, 31 , 681 A.2d 310 (formal stipulation of facts by parties constitutes judicial admission that should normally be adopted by court deciding case), cert. denied, 238 Conn. 907 , 679 A.2d 2 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1108 , 117 S. Ct. 1115 , 137 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James L. v. Commissioner of Correction
“Proof of unconstitutional impairment of the right to appeal empowers a court to fashion an order conditionally discharging the petitioner or otherwise fashioning the appropriate relief, short of immediate release, to which the petitioner may be entitled.” Id., 517-18; see also State v. Phidd, 42 Conn. App. 17, 27-29 , 681 A.2d 310 , cert. denied, 238 Conn. 907 , 679 A.2d 2 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1108 , 117 S. Ct. 1115 , 137 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SHARPER IMAGE CORPORATION
v.
DONALD F. MILLER, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES
v.
DONALD F. MILLER, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES
SC 15486.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 18, 1996.
Michael J. Mannion and Martin I. Eisenstein, in support of the petition., Richard K. Greenberg, assistant attorney general, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
The appellate panel’s request for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 42 Conn. App. 310 (AC 14499), is granted, limited to the following issue:
[*908] The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15486. Michael J. Mannion and Martin I. Eisenstein, in support of the petition. Richard K. Greenberg, assistant attorney general, in opposition. Decided July 18, 1996“Under the circumstances of this case, was the taxpayer liable for payment of a Connecticut use tax on its catalogs that were mailed to Connecticut residents?”