green
Positive treatment
3.7 score
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Antwon W. v. Commissioner of Correction
That trial courts are accorded broad discretion in controlling the manner and scope of voir dire examinations; see State v. Rios , 74 Conn.App. 110 , 114, 810 A.2d 812 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 945 , 815 A.2d 677 (2003) ; reflects this reality.
cited
Cited "see"
Zanoni v. Lynch
See Dontigney v. Roberts, 73 Conn. App. 709, 710 , 809 A.2d 539 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 944 , 815 A.2d 675 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
McHenry v. Nusbaum
See Dontigney v. Roberts, 73 Conn. App. 709, 712 , 809 A.2d 539 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 944 , 815 A.2d 675 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. James K.
The purpose of voir dire is to facilitate [the] intelligent exer- cise of peremptory challenges and to help uncover fac- tors that would dictate disqualification for cause.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Holmes, 334 Conn. 202 , 222–23, 221 A.3d 407 (2019); see also State v. Rios, 74 Conn. App. 110, 114 , 810 A.2d 812 (2002) (discussing constitutional and statutory basis for right to question prospective jurors individually), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 945 , 815 A.2d 677 (2003).
MUNICIPAL FUNDING, LLC
v.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF WATERBURY
v.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF WATERBURY
SC 16934.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 5, 2003.
Elaine M. Skoronski, in support of the petition., Franklin G. Pilicy, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
No opinion found.Click here to view source material.