State v. Lipscomb, 761 A.2d 756 (Conn. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Lipscomb, 761 A.2d 756 (Conn. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
59 citation events (58 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Lebrick (connappct, 2018-01-16)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" State v. Lebrick
Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Marrero , 59 Conn. App. 189 , 191-92, 757 A.2d 594 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 934 , 761 A.2d 756 (2000).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Lewis (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. DeBarros, 58 Conn. App. 673, 679-84 , 755 A.2d 303 (reversal warranted when court improperly instructed on general intent in initial charge plus two supplemental charges when only instruction on specific intent required and court referenced improper general intent instruction numerous times), cert. denied, 254 Conn. 931 , 761 A.2d 756 (2000).
cited Cited "see" Haynes v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Haynes, 58 Conn. App. 908 , 754 A.2d 220 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 931 , 761 A.2d 756 (2000).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Montanez
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. DeBarros, 58 Conn. App. 673, 690-91 , 755 A.2d 303 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 931 , 761 A.2d 756 (2000); State v. Cardany, 35 Conn. App. 728, 739-40 , 646 A.2d 291 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 942 , 653 A.2d 823 (1994).
cited Cited "see" State v. Marrero
Conn. App. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. DeBarros, 58 Conn. App. 673, 682-83 , 755 A.2d 303 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 931 , 761 A.2d 756 (2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Holmes
Conn. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare State v. DeBarros, 58 Conn. App. 673 , 755 A.2d 303 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 931 , 761 A.2d 756 (2000), on which the defendant relies. 12 The defendant cannot prevail under Golding's third prong because he has failed to establish that a constitutional violation clearly exists and that it clearly deprived him of a fair trial.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
CECIL LIPSCOMB
SC 16395.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 12, 2000.
761 A.2d 756
Christopher T. Godialis, assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

No opinion found.Click here to view source material.