green
Positive treatment
Trending · 75 recent citers
9.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Town of Glastonbury v. Sakon
(2×)
The striking of special defenses neither terminates a separate proceeding nor so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them." Internal quotation marks omitted.) JP Morgan Chase Bank, Trustee v. Rodrigues , 109 Conn.App. 125 , 129-30, 952 A.2d 56 (2008) ; accord Egri v. Foisie , 83 Conn.App. 243 , 249, 848 A.2d 1266 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 931 , 859 A.2d 930 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Buhl
(2×)
See State v. Browne, 84 Conn App. 351, 380–83, 854 A.2d 13 (discussing duplicity and recognizing that ‘‘[a] single count is not duplicitous merely because it contains several allegations that could have been stated as separate offenses’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 931 , 859 A.2d 930 (2004). 6 The third allegation of harassment does not specify to whom the Face- book communication was directed in an effort to annoy or alarm M.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Buhl
(2×)
See State v. Browne, 84 Conn App. 351, 380–83, 854 A.2d 13 (discussing duplicity and recognizing that ‘‘[a] single count is not duplicitous merely because it contains several allegations that could have been stated as separate offenses’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 931 , 859 A.2d 930 (2004). 6 The third allegation of harassment does not specify to whom the Face- book communication was directed in an effort to annoy or alarm M.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Spikes
(3×)
See State v. Browne, 84 Conn. App. 351, 389 , 854 A.2d 13 (affirming verdict when jury able to view some stolen jewelry, owner testified as to its value and state presented several types of valuation methods), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 931 , 859 A.2d 930 (2004).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Silva
(4×)
See State v. Browne, 84 Conn.App. 351, 379 , 854 A.2d 13 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 931 , 859 A.2d 930 (2004) (same transaction may constitute separate and distinct crimes where it is susceptible of separation into parts, each of which constitutes completed offense).
discussed
Cited "see"
Zirinsky v. Zirinsky
(2×)
See Practice Book § 10-44.” Egri v. Foisie, 83 Conn. App. 243, 249 , 848 A.2d 1266 , cert, denied, 271 Conn. 931 , 859 A.2d 930 (2004); see also Grier v. West Haven Police Dept., 8 Conn. App. 142, 143-44 , 510 A.2d 1376 (1986) (party against whom motion to strike is granted must either replead within fifteen days or move for judgment in order to appeal.) The present case involves a unique set of circumstances that warrants a rare departure from the general rule requiring the parties to file a motion for judgment and the court to render judgment following the granting of the motion to strike…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Osoria
(2×)
See State v. Browne, 84 Conn. App. 351, 387 , 854 A.2d 13 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 931 , 859 A.2d 930 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Young v. Hartford Hospital
(2×)
See, e.g., Egri v. Foisie, 83 Conn. App. 243 , 247–48, 848 A.2d 1266 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 931 , 859 A.2d 930 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Machado v. Taylor
(2×)
See Egri v. Foisie , 83 Conn.App. 243 , 246-51, 848 A.2d 1266 (failure to allege negligent operation of vehicle as required by § 52-556 should have been raised through motion to strike, not motion to dismiss, because plaintiff potentially could state claim under statute), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 931 , 859 A.2d 930 (2004) ; see also In re Jose B. , 303 Conn. 569 , 572-80, 34 A.3d 975 (2012) (clarifying that absence of jurisdiction means that plaintiff could not establish jurisdictional facts, not that plaintiff had not done so).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Geremia v. Geremia
(2×)
See Caltabiano v. Phillips, 23 Conn. App. 258, 265 , 580 A.2d 67 (1990) (‘‘[a] motion to dismiss does not test the sufficiency of a cause of action and should not be granted on other than jurisdictional grounds’’); see also Egri v. Foisie, 83 Conn. App. 243, 247 , 848 A.2d 1266 (‘‘[t]here is a significant difference between asserting that a plaintiff cannot state a cause of action and asserting that a plaintiff has not stated a cause of action, and therein lies the distinction between the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike’’ [emphasis in original]), cert. denied, 271 Co…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shenkman-Tyler v. Central Mut. Ins. Co.
(2×)
That should be done, instead, by a motion to strike . . . .” (Citation omitted.) Pratt v. Old Saybrook, 225 Conn. 177, 185 , 621 A.2d 1322 (1993); see also Egri v. Foisie, 83 Conn. App. 243, 247 , 848 A.2d 1266 (“[tjhere is a significant difference between asserting that a plaintiff cannot state a cause of action and asserting that a plaintiff has not stated a cause of action, and therein lies the distinction between the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike” [emphasis in original]), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 931 , 859 A.2d 930 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sorabella
(2×)
In particular, the defendant did not challenge the obscenity count on grounds of duplicity; see, e.g., State v. Browne, 84 Conn. App. 351, 380-81 , 854 A.2d 13 (“[d]uplicity occurs when two or more offenses are charged in a single count of the accusatory instrument” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 931 , 859 A.2d 930 (2004); even though the state expressly alleged, with respect to that count, that the defendant had “disseminate [d] obscene material” “on or about divers [e] dates between January and February, 2000, in the city of New Britain . . . .” 50 (…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
Bryant Browne
v.
Bryant Browne
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 13, 2004.
Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, in support of the petition., John A. East III, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 84 Conn. App. 351 (AC 23041), is denied.
[*932] Decided October 13, 2004 John A. East III, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.