green
Positive treatment
3.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Peloso
See State v. Montini, 52 Conn. App. 682, 687, 730 A.2d 76 (decision to open criminal case to add further testimony lies within sound discretion of trial court), cert. denied, 249 Conn. 909 , 733 A.2d 227 (1999); see also State v. Iban C., supra, 275 Conn. 652 (whether trial judge shall question witness is within his sound discretion); United *494 States v. Karnes, supra, 531 F.2d 216 (court has authority, if not duty, to call witnesses who possess relevant information affecting outcome of issues when parties decline to call them so long as it is done impartially).
cited
Cited "see"
Sevastian v. Sevastian
See Honan v. Dimyan, 52 Conn. App. 123, 126 , 726 A.2d 613 , cert. denied, 249 Conn. 909 , 733 A.2d 227 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.
(2×)
See United States v. Glick, 946 F.2d 335, 337 (4th Cir.1991) (appellate judge's service as chairman of commission that recommended sentencing guidelines did not necessitate disqualification, upon defendant's motion, in appeal brought by government after trial court departed from sentencing guidelines); United States v. Payne, 944 F.2d 1458, 1476 (9th Cir.1991) (trial judge's participation on attorney general's commission on pornography did not necessitate disqualification from case alleging carnal knowledge of female under age of sixteen), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 975 , 112 S.Ct. 1598 , 118 L.Ed…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Snet v. F. Woodward Lewis, Jr., No. Cv 98 0408723s (Feb. 18, 2003)
Our Supreme Court has described the four types of invasion of privacy as "(1) appropriation, for the defendant's benefit or advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness; (2) intrusion upon the plaintiff's physical solitude or seclusion; (3) publicity, of a highly objectionable kind, given to private information about the plaintiff even though it is true and no action would lie for defamation; and (4) publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye." Venturi v. Savitt, Inc. , 191 Conn. 588 , 591 n. 1, 468 A.2d 933 (1983); see also Honan v. Dimyan , 52 Conn. App. 123 , …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Tomas v. Joseph, No. Cv 98 0166446 S (Nov. 29, 1999)
Whipple, Inc. , 225 Conn. 705 , 720 , 627 A.2d 374 (1993); see also Honan v. Dimyan , 52 Conn. App. 123 , 130 , 726 A.2d 613 , cert. denied, 249 Conn. 909 , 733 A.2d 226 (1999).
WILLIAM H. HONAN
v.
JOSEPH DIMYAN
v.
JOSEPH DIMYAN
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 2, 1999.
Nancy Burton, in support of the petition., Martin A. Rader, in opposition.
Berdon.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Lead Opinion
The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 52 Conn. App. 123 (AC 17121), is denied.
Nancy Burton, in support of the petition. Martin A. Rader, in opposition. Decided June 2, 1999Dissent
BERDON, J.,
dissenting. I would grant the plaintiffs’ petition for certification to appeal.