green
Positive treatment
6.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Jepsen v. Camassar
Searching for a particular meaning adopted by the creating parties is generally inappropriate because the creating parties intended to bind and benefit successors for whom the written record will provide the primary evidence of the servitude's meaning." 1 Restatement (Third), supra, § 4.1, comment (d), pp. 499-500; accord Dent v. Lovejoy , 85 Conn. App. 455 , 463-64, 857 A.2d 952 (2004) (adhering to that standard of construction), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 912 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mariculture Products Ltd. v. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
As long as the defendant is sufficiently apprised of the nature of the action . . . the failure to comply with the directive of Practice Book § 10-3 (a) will not bar recovery.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Spears v. Garcia, 66 Conn. App. 669, 675-76 , 785 A.2d 1181 (2001), aff'd, 263 Conn. 22 , 818 A.2d 37 (2003); see Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Assn. of Stratford, Inc., 85 Conn. App. 663, 671 , 858 A.2d 860 (2004), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 912 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Intercity Development, LLC v. Andrade
Practice Book § 60-5; see, e.g., River Bend Associates, Inc. v. Conservation & Inland Wetlands Commission, 269 Conn. 57, 82 , 848 A.2d 395 (2004) ([o]nly in [the] most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court); PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279, 335 , 838 A.2d 135 (2004) (because review is limited to matters in record, court will not address issues not decided by trial court).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rowe, 279 Conn. 139, 149-50…
cited
Cited "see"
Burke v. Commissioner of Correction
See Carey v. Commission of Correction, 86 Conn. App. 180, 182 , 860 A.2d 776 (2004), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 915 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Little
See Carey v. Commissioner of Correction, 86 Conn. App. 180 , 185 n.6, 860 A.2d 776 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 915 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Morneau
Schedule B was not intended as a deed to one half of the title to the property to Moran, but rather to indicate, if anything, that such a deed would be forth- coming.7 ‘‘The meaning and effect of the [language in a deed] are to be determined, not by the actual intent of the parties, but by the intent expressed in the deed, consid- ering all its relevant provisions and reading it in the light of the surrounding circumstances.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Simone v. Miller, 91 Conn. App. 98, 108 , 881 A.2d 397 (2005); see also Dent v. Lovejoy, 85 Conn. App. 455, 4…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Drake v. Bingham
See, e.g., Dent v. Lovejoy, 85 Conn. App. 455, 470-71 , 857 A.2d 952 (2004), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 912 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005). 15 The plaintiffs request to charge, though minimal, did include as prerequisites for application of the doctrine that the jury find that damages were enhanced in fact by the failure to mitigate and that the damages “which could have been avoided” were reasonably measurable.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Adamo v. Adamo
See Traggis v. Shawmut Bank Connecticut, N.A., supra, 72 Conn. App. 264 ; see also Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Assn. of Stratford, Inc., 85 Conn. App. 663, 680 , 858 A.2d 860 (2004) (“[f]or this court to . . . consider [a] claim on the basis of a specific legal ground *47 not raised during trial would amount to trial by ambuscade, unfair both to the [court] and to the opposing party” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 912 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Almedina v. Commissioner of Correction
“It is well established that [a] trial court may properly rely on . . . the responses of the [petitioner] at the time [he] responded to the trial court’s plea canvass.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stith, 108 Conn. App. 126, 131 , 946 A.2d 1274 (2008); see also Carey v. Commissioner of Correction, 86 Conn. App. 180, 185-86 , 860 A. 2d 776 (2004) (upholding habeas court’s finding that plea knowingly and voluntarily given when, although petitioner claimed he had taken medication on date he entered plea and that this made him confused, there was no evidence that described …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Stith
There has been no offer or proffer of medical documentation to suggest that the defendant was, in fact, on any type of medication on April 26, 2005, other than the bare *131 assertions of the defendant.” 3 “It is well established that [a] trial court may properly rely on . . . the responses of the [defendant] at the time [she] responded to the trial court’s plea canvass . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Monk, 88 Conn. App. 543, 552 , 869 A.2d 1281 (2005); see also Carey v. Commissioner of Correction, 86 Conn. App. 180, 185-86 , 860 A.2d 776 (2004) (upholding habeas …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bowden v. Commissioner of Correction
See King v. Commissioner of Correction, 73 Conn. App. 600, 603 , 808 A.2d 1166 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 133 (2003); see also Carey v. Commissioner of Correction, 86 Conn. App. 180 , 185 n.6, 860 A.2d 776 (2004), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 915 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005). 7 Similarly, in Adorno v. Commissioner of Correction, 66 Conn. App. 179 , 188 n.3, 783 A.2d 1202 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 943 , 786 A.2d 428 (2001), we stated that “[t]he habeas court, however, did not discuss in detail those claims, some of which were not even mentioned in the petition for habeas corpus.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Florian v. Lenge
Our review of the trial court’s construction of the pleadings is plenary.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Federal Deposit Ins. *274 Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806, 813 , 873 A.2d 1003 (2005); see also Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Assn. of Stratford, Inc., 85 Conn. App. 663, 671 , 858 A.2d 860 (2004) (interpretation of requirements of rules of practice is question of law), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 912 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Krack v. Action Motors Corp.
See, e.g., Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Assn. of Stratford, Inc., 85 Conn.App. 663, 672 , 858 A.2d 860 (2004), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 912 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STEPHEN G. DENT
v.
ALLEN F. LOVEJOY
v.
ALLEN F. LOVEJOY
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 3, 2005.
Douglas R. Steinmetz and Calvin K. Woo, in support of the petition., James R. Fogarty, in opposition.
Published
The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 85 Conn. App. 455 (AC 23009), is denied.