green
Positive treatment
5.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Gabriella A.
See In re Jorden R., supra, 293 Conn. 552–53. 12 See, e.g., In re Destiny D., 86 Conn. App. 77 , 79–80, 83–84, 859 A.2d 973 (mother erratically attended rehabilitative programs, resisted treatment recommendations, received positive drug tests, and refused to sign releases that would have allowed petitioner to make additional referrals), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 911 , 863 A.2d 702 (2004); In re Alexander T., supra, 81 Conn. App. 674 (mother failed to attend drug screenings and evaluations and did not visit her children for nine months); In re Ebony H., 68 Conn. App. 342, 346 , 789 A.2d 115…
cited
Cited "see"
Bloom v. Miklovich
See George v. Watertown, 85 Conn. App. 606, 612 , 858 A.2d 800 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 911 , 863 A.2d 702 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Beavers
See State v. Reid, 85 Conn. App. 802, 804 , 858 A.2d 892 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 908 , 863 A.2d 702 (2004). 2 General Statutes § 53a-211 (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of possession of a sawed-off shotgun . . . when he owns, controls or possesses any sawed-off shotgun that has a barrel of less than eighteen inches or an overall length of less than twenty-six inches . . . .” 3 The defendant also testified that Atkins’ firearm was a shotgun. 4 We analyze the defendant’s claim under the federal constitution only because, although he raised a claim under our state co…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Boyajian v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Compare, e.g., id., 151, 157 (permitting collateral attack on condition to variance that contradicted ‘‘the strong and deeply rooted public policy in favor of the free and unrestricted alienability of property’’ and failed to serve ‘‘legal and useful purpose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), with George v. Watertown, 85 Conn. App. 606 , 611–12, 858 A.2d 800 (prohibiting collateral attack on commission action that implicated strong public pol- icy interest but fell within ‘‘conformity [of] the law’’), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 911 , 863 A.2d 702 (2004), and Caltabia…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. VanDeusen
In rejecting the defendant’s claim, this court held that ‘‘[r]egardless of whether the defendant knew that the children were in the apartment, the jury reasonably could have found that he violated [§ 53-21] on the basis of his reckless disregard of the conse- quences of his actions.’’ Id.; see also State v. Reid, 85 Conn. App. 802 , 808–10, 858 A.2d 892 (rejecting defen- dant’s claim on appeal that ‘‘there was no credible evi- dence that he had the intent necessary to be convicted under § 53-21 because he was unaware that the child was in [the] victim’s house when he ente…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bingham v. Department of Public Works
See, e.g., George v. Watertown, 85 Conn. App. 606, 613 , 858 A.2d 800 (holding that the plaintiffs action for declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of a subdivision regulation was ripe, although the plaintiff did not have an application pending and the planning and zoning commission was not presently attempting to enforce the challenged regulation against him, where the commission had enforced the regulation in the past, and thus was likely to do so in the future), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 911 , 863 A.2d 702 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Duane GEORGE
v.
TOWN OF WATERTOWN et al.
v.
TOWN OF WATERTOWN et al.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 20, 2004.
Published
Edward S. Hyman, Hartford, in support of the petition.
John F. Conway and W. Glen Pierson, Wallingford, in opposition.
The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 85 Conn.App. 606, 858 A.2d 800 (2004), is denied.