Shew v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 696 A.2d 340 (Conn. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Shew v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 696 A.2d 340 (Conn. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
77 citation events (44 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cornfield Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Cummings (connappct, 2014-02-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Cornfield Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Cummings
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sicaras v. Hartford, 44 Conn. App. 771, 789 , 692 A.2d 1290 (plaintiff not under duress where no evidence that other party induced assent), cert. denied, 241 Conn. 916 , 696 A.2d 340 (1997).
discussed Cited "see" 98 Lords Highway, LLC v. One Hundred Lords Highway, LLC
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury, 239 Conn. 375, 391 , 685 A.2d 1108 (1996).” Sicaras v. Hartford, 44 Conn. App. 771, 779 , 692 A.2d 1290 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 916 , 696 A.2d 340 (1997); see also Lusas v. St.
examined Cited "see" Waterbury Twin, LLC v. Renal Treatment Centers-Northeast, Inc. (4×)
Conn. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sicaras v. Hartford, 44 Conn.App. 771, 775 , 692 A.2d 1290 ("[w]ithdrawals are analogous to final judgments"), cert. denied, 241 Conn. 916 , 696 A.2d 340 (1997); see also Lusas v. St.
cited Cited "see" Davis v. Hebert
Conn. App. Ct. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sicaras v. Hartford, 44 Conn. App. 771, 775-79 , 692 A.2d 1290 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 916 , 696 A.2d 340 (1997).
cited Cited "see" Faulise v. Eisenstein, No. Cv98-0490341s (Oct. 30, 2000)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see" Moore v. State, No. Cv 95-0553888s (Aug. 29, 2000)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sicaras v. Hartford , 44 Conn. App. 771 , 784 , 692 A.2d 1290 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 916 , 696 A.2d 340 (1997). "`Meeting of the minds' is defined as "mutual agreement and assent of two parties to contract to substance and terms.
cited Cited "see" Smith v. Reynolds
Conn. App. Ct. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sicaras v. Hartford, 44 Conn. App. 771, 776 , 692 A.2d 1290 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 916 , 696 A.2d 340 (1997).
cited Cited "see" Emerick v. Kuhn
Conn. App. Ct. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sicaras v. Hartford, 44 Conn. App. 771, 784 , 692 A.2d 1290 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 916 , 696 A.2d 340 (1997).
discussed Cited "see" Connecticut Post Ltd. Parts. v. Allen, No. Cvnh 9610-7875 (Jan. 12, 1998)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
"A condition precedent is a fact or event which the parties intend must exist or take place before there is a right to performance." Lach v. Cahill, 138 Conn. 418 , 421 , 85 A.2d 481 (1951); see Sicaras v. City of Hartford, 44 Conn. App. 771 , 780 , 692 A.2d 1290 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 916 , 696 A.2d 340 (1997).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Simmons v. Simmons
Conn. · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Sicaras v. Hartford, 44 Conn. App. 771, 783-84 , 692 A.2d 1290 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 916 , 696 A.2d 340 (1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
O. PAUL SHEW
v.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
SC 15707.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 5, 1997.
696 A.2d 340
Mitchell W. Pearlman, general counsel, and Victor Perpetua, appellate attorney, in support of the petition., Felix J. Springer, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 44 Conn. App. 611 (AC 15279), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the communications by town employees to Attorney Stuhlman were covered by the attorney-client privilege, subject to the factual determinations required by Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 101 S. Ct. 677, 66 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1981)?

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the documents in question were preliminary drafts or notes within the meaning of General Statutes § 1-19 (b) (1)?”