green
Positive treatment
17.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Rose
“It is well established in Connecticut. . . that the trial court generally is not obligated, sua sponte, to give a limiting instruction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 70.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Atkins
“It is well established in Connecticut . . . that the trial court generally is not obligated, sua sponte, to give a limiting instruction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 70.; see State v. Cator, 256 Conn. 785, 801 , 781 A.2d 285 (2001) (“trial court generally is not obligated, sua sponte, to give a limiting instruction”); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 1-4 (“court may, and upon request shall, restrict the evidence to its proper scope”). 13 The failure by the court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant *536 did not request, that is not of constitutional dime…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Rosado
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 70. 9 A four count information was in effect at the time the defendant filed his motion to sever.
discussed
Cited "see"
Three Deer Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Johnson
See Collard & Roe, P.C. v. Klein, 87 Conn. App. 337 , 343–44 n.3, 865 A.2d 500 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 904 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005). 3 This court has subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining portion of the appeal because it was filed within the statutory appeal period following the denial of the motion to open.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gleason v. Durden
See Collard & Roe, P.C. v. Klein, 87 Conn. App. 337 , 343–44 n.3, 865 A.2d 500 (‘‘[a] pro se party may not appear on behalf of another pro se party’’), cert. denied, 274 Conn. 904 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Leonova v. Leonov
See Quasius v. Quasius, 87 Conn. App. 206, 208 , 866 A.2d 606 (reviewing trial court’s finding concerning usual course of business exception for abuse of discretion because trial court is ‘‘in the best position to assess all of the circumstances surrounding a dissolution action’’ (internal quotation marks omit- ted)), cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 12 (2005). ‘‘Whether a transaction is conducted in the usual course of business does not turn solely on the type of asset or transaction but on whether the transaction at issue was ‘a continuation of prior activities’ carri…
discussed
Cited "see"
Procaccini v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc.
(2×)
See State v. Dews , 87 Conn.App. 63 , 69, 864 A.2d 59 (rejecting claim that trial court, sua sponte, should have "stricken ... testimony and offered a limiting instruction as to its use" because "defendant did not object to ... testimony, he failed to seek to have the testimony stricken ... he did not request a limiting instruction ... [and] he [did not] take exception to the court's failure to give a limiting instruction"), cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
O'Brien v. O'Brien
See *1260 Quasius v. Quasius , 87 Conn.App. 206 , 208, 866 A.2d 606 (reviewing trial court's finding concerning usual course of business exception for abuse of discretion because trial court is "in the best position to assess all of the circumstances surrounding a dissolution action" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 12 (2005).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Jordan
(4×)
See State v. Dews, 87 Conn.App. 63, 77 , 864 A.2d 59 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Carbone
(2×)
See State v. Dews, 87 Conn. App. 63, 79 , 864 A.2d 59 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ackerly and Brown, LLP v. Smithies
See General Statutes § 51-88.” (Citation omitted.) Collard & Roe, P.C. v. Klein, 87 Conn. App. 337 , 343-44 n.3, 865 A.2d 500 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 904 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005). 2 “Malpractice is commonly defined as the failure of one rendering professional services to exercise that degree of skill and learning commonly applied under all the circumstances in the community by the average prudent reputable member of the profession with the result of injury, loss, or damage to the recipient of those services . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dixon v. Bromson & Reiner, 95 Conn. A…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. MARTIN V.
(2×)
See State v. Dews, 87 Conn. App. 63, 73 , 864 A.2d 59 (“[t]he testimony of [two minor victims] that the defendant touched their genitals was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that the defendant committed sexual *389 assault”), cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Perry v. State
See Collard & Roe, P.C. v. Klein, 87 Conn. App. 337 , 344 n.3, 865 A.2d 500 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 904 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Elm City Local, CACP v. New Haven
See also, e.g., Con- necticut State Police Union v. Dept. of Public Safety, 86 Conn. App. 686, 690 , 862 A.2d 344 (2004) (submission 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 9 Elm City Local, CACP v. New Haven that asked ‘‘[w]as the [plaintiff] terminated for just cause’’ and, ‘‘[i]f not, what shall be the remedy consis- tent with the [union] [c]ontract’’ was unrestricted (inter- nal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 11 (2005). ‘‘We have, however, recognized certain grounds for vacating an award even when the parties have commit-…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Harris
(2×)
That is, it is a doctrine that this court invokes in order to rectify a trial court ruling that, although either not properly preserved or never raised at all in the trial court, none- theless requires reversal of the trial court’s judgment, for reasons of policy. . . . [Thus, an appellant] cannot prevail under [the plain error doctrine] . . . unless he [or she] demonstrates that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judg- ment would result in manifest injustice.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Roger B., 297 Conn…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cunniffe v. Cunniffe
See, e.g., Quasius v. Quasius, 87 Conn. App. 206 , 866 A.2d 606 (whether party in dissolution action violated automatic orders reviewed on appeal after judgment of dissolution rendered), cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 12 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ampero
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Dews, 87 Conn. App. 63, 75 , 864 A.2d 59 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lanagan
“Our law does not require the state to prove that all conditions alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.” State v. Widlak, 74 Conn. App. 364, 370 , 812 A.2d 134 (2002) , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 902 , 823 A.2d 1222 (2003) ; see also State v. Payne, 88 Conn. App. 656, 660 , 870 A.2d 1159 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 903 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mapp
(2×)
See State v. Quinones, 92 Conn. App. 389, 391 , 885 A.2d 227 (2005) (violation of any one condition of probation would suffice to serve as basis for revoking defendant’s probation), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 904 , 891 A.2d 4 (2006); see also State v. Payne, 88 Conn. App. 656, 660 , 870 A.2d 1159 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 903 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cutler
(2×)
It is well established that “the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction concerning the use of evidence of prior misconduct is not a matter of constitutional magnitude . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rosario, 99 Conn. App. 92 , 105 n.8, 912 A.2d 1064 , cert. denied, 281 Conn. 925 , 918 A.2d 276 (2007); see also State v. Dews, 87 Conn. App. 63, 75 , 864 A.2d 59 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005); State v. Ortiz, 40 Conn. App. 374, 381 , 674 A.2d 389 , cert. denied, 236 Conn. 916 , 673 A.2d 1144 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Fowler
“The Court: So, we’ll note the typo.” 9 See State v. Quinones, 92 Conn. App. 389, 391 , 885 A.2d 227 (2005) (violation of any one condition of probation would suffice to serve as basis for revoking defendant’s probation), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 904 , 891 A.2d 4 (2006); State v. Widlak, 74 Conn. App. 364, 370 , 812 A.2d 134 (2002), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 902 , 823 A.2d 1222 (2003); see also State v. Payne, 88 *168 Conn. App. 656, 660, 870 A.2d 1159 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 903 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. LaVallee
(2×)
See State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 479-80 , 832 A.2d 626 (2003); see also State v. Dews, 87 Conn. App. 63, 77-78 , 864 A.2d 59 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Bermudez
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Dews, 87 Conn. App. 63, 76-77 , 864 A.2d 59 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Quinones
“Our law does not require the state to prove that all conditions alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.” State v. Widlak, 74 Conn. App. 364, 370 , 812 A.2d 134 (2002), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 902 , 823 A.2d 1222 (2003); see also State v. Payne, 88 Conn. App. 656, 660 , 870 A.2d 1159 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 903 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
Eugene Dews
v.
Eugene Dews
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 2, 2005.
Suzanne Zitser, assistant public defender, in support of the petition., Frederick W. Fawcett, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 63 (AC 24160), is denied.
NORCOTT and KATZ, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.