Scoville v. Shop-Rite Supermarkets, Inc., 867 A.2d 838 (Conn. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Scoville v. Shop-Rite Supermarkets, Inc., 867 A.2d 838 (Conn. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (42 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Elmer G. (connappct, 2017-09-12)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" State v. Elmer G.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Boseman , 87 Conn.App. 9 , 17, 863 A.2d 704 (2004), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 923 , 867 A.2d 838 (2005).
cited Cited "see" State v. Elmer
Conn. App. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Boseman, 87 Conn. App. 9, 17 , 863 A.2d 704 (2004), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 923 , 867 A.2d 838 (2005).
discussed Cited "see" Pan Handle Realty, LLC v. Olins (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Scoville v. Shop-Rite Supermarkets, Inc., 86 Conn. App. 426, 431 , 863 A.2d 211 (2004) (“[i]t is [well] established . . . that parties are free to contract for whatever terms on which they may agree” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 921 , 867 A.2d 838 (2005).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Randolph
Conn. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Blackwell, 86 Conn. App. 409, 415-16 , 861 A.2d 548 (2004) (photographic array was not unnecessarily suggestive even though witness recognized three of eight men depicted), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 922 , 867 A.2d 838 (2005).
discussed Cited "see" Camphor Technologies, Inc. v. Biofer, S.P.A. (2×)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See id., 428 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Necaise
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Blackwell, 86 Conn. App. 409, 424-25 , 861 A.2d 548 (2004) (prosecutor’s comment to jury on legal propriety of identification from photographic array proper after defendant made argument that jury should not put any weight on that identification), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 922 , 867 A.2d 838 (2005).
discussed Cited "see" State v. DeCarlo
Conn. App. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Blackwell, 86 Conn. App. 409, 417-18 , 861 A.2d 548 , (2004) cert. denied, 272 Conn. 922 , 867 A.2d 838 (2005). “[T]he touchstone for appellate review of claims of prosecutorial misconduct is a determination of whether the defendant was deprived of his right to a fair trial, and this determination must involve the application of the factors set out by [our Supreme Court] in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Skyes
Conn. App. Ct. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Boseman, 87 Conn. App. 9 , 22–23, 863 A.2d 704 (2004) (assessing whether, in absence of modification of condition or new condition imposed by probation officer, probation condition imposed by court could reasonably be interpreted to prohibit defendant’s behavior, in light of due process requirement of fair notice), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 923 , 867 A.2d 838 (2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Homer G. SCOVILLE
v.
SHOP-RITE SUPERMARKETS, INC., et al.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 27, 2005.
867 A.2d 838
Published

Andrew J. O'Keefe and Joseph M. Busher, Jr., Hartford, in support of the petition.

Barbara A. Frederick, Craig A. Raabe, Lisa K. Titus, Charles D. Ray and Eric W. Wiechmann, Hartford, in opposition.

The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 86 Conn.App. 426, 863 A.2d 211 (2004), is denied.