Purnell v. Purnell III, 907 A.2d 91 (Conn. 2006).

cited Cited "see" Pellet v. Keller Williams Realty Corp.

Conn. App. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high

See State v. Diaz , 94 Conn.App. 582 , 586-87, 893 A.2d 495 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 901 , 907 A.2d 91 (2006).

cited Cited "see" McKeon v. Lennon

Conn. App. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high

See State v. Ortiz, 95 Conn. App. 69, 81 , 895 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 94 (2006).

cited Cited "see" McKeon v. Lennon

Conn. App. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high

See State v. Ortiz, 95 Conn. App. 69, 81 , 895 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 94 (2006).

discussed Cited "see" Haywood v. Commissioner of Correction

Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high

See Servello v. Commissioner of Correction, 95 Conn. App. 753, 761 , 899 A.2d 636 (‘‘the decision of a trial lawyer not to make an objection is a matter of trial tactics, not evidence of incompetency’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904 , 907 A.2d 91 (2006).

cited Cited "see" O'Connell, Flaherty & Attmore, LLC v. Doody

Conn. App. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high

See Irving v. Firehouse Associates, LLC, 95 Conn. App. 713, 718-21 , 898 A.2d 270 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 90 (2006).

discussed Cited "see" State v. Banks

Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high

See State v. Diaz, 94 Conn. App. 582, 588-89 , 893 A.2d 495 (court did not abuse discretion in removing only Hispanic juror where record provided ample evidence showing court had cause to excuse jury because of juror’s potential conflicts), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 901 , 907 A.2d 91 (2006). 8 The defendant frames his argument as presenting a constitutional issue, namely, a violation of due process.

discussed Cited "see" State v. Felix

Conn. App. Ct. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high

See State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23 , 26 n.2, 917 A.2d 978 (2007). 2 The state first argues that “this court should decline review of the defendant’s claim[s] because he has inadequately briefed [them] by failing to cite any legal authority or analyze any case law dealing with alleged prosecutorial impropriety.” See State v. Diaz, 94 Conn. App. 582, 592-93 , 893 A.2d 495 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 901 , 907 A.2d 91 (2006).

discussed Cited "see" Jeudy v. Jeudy

Conn. App. Ct. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high

Because it is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to resolve credibility determinations; see State v. Ortiz, 95 Conn. App. 69, 81 , 895 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 94 (2006); and there is evidence in the record supporting the claim that the defendant’s abode at the time of service was 404 Fairview Avenue, the court did not improperly find that service was adequate.

discussed Cited "see" State v. Ramirez

Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high

See General Statutes § 54-86e. 3 “It is well established that generally this court will not review claims that were not properly preserved in the trial court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Diaz, 94 Conn. App. 582, 586-87 , 893 A.2d 495 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 901 , 907 A.2d 91 (2006).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Leniart

Conn. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low

Ed. 2d 369 (2010); People v. Vega, Docket No. G045613, 2013 WL 1736669 , *8 (Cal. App. April 23, 2013) (Natapoff’s testimony was properly excluded), review denied, Cali- fornia Supreme Court, Docket No. S210465 (June 26, 2013); State v. Woods, supra, 2014 WL 4437733 , *7 (trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony when informant was cross-examined at length); see also Servello v. Commissioner of Correc- tion, 95 Conn. App. 753, 763 , 899 A.2d 636 (upholding habeas court’s conclusion that expert testimony would not have assisted jury), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Leniart

Conn. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low

Ed. 2d 369 (2010); People v. Vega, Docket No. G045613, 2013 WL 1736669 , *8 (Cal. App. April 23, 2013) (Natapoff’s testimony was properly excluded), review denied, Cali- fornia Supreme Court, Docket No. S210465 (June 26, 2013); State v. Woods, supra, 2014 WL 4437733 , *7 (trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony when informant was cross-examined at length); see also Servello v. Commissioner of Correc- tion, 95 Conn. App. 753, 763 , 899 A.2d 636 (upholding habeas court’s conclusion that expert testimony would not have assisted jury), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marquez v. Commissioner of Correction (2×)

Conn. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low

See, e.g., Servello v. Commissioner of Correction, 95 Conn. App. 753, 763 , 899 A.2d 636 (petitioner claimed that his defense counsel should have called expert wit- ness at trial to testify whether informant ‘‘expected to receive, or already had received, consideration in exchange for his cooperation’’), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904 , 907 A.2d 91 (2006); see also United States v. Noze, 255 F. Supp. 3d 352, 353 (D.

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jordan v. Biller

Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low

When the easement "will continue to be of value [to] whoever may own the property, that is strong evidence that the parties intended a permanent easement." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Leabo v. Leninski , 182 Conn. 611 , 614-15, 438 A.2d 1153 (1981) ; see also Irving v. Firehouse Associates, LLC , 95 Conn. App. 713 , 729-30, 898 A.2d 270 (value of right-of-way great enough to support conclusion easement ran with land when property would be landlocked without it), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 90 (2006).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. DeMarco

Conn. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low

The three general categories that the courts have identi- fied as justifying the application of the doctrine are danger to human life, destruction of evidence and flight of a suspect.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Aviles, supra, 294 . ‘‘Moreover, this court previously held that ‘we do not read [prior case law] to require direct evidence of an emergency situation . . . .’ State v. Colon, supra, 272 Conn. 147 ; see also State v. Ortiz, [ 95 Conn. App. 69, 83 , 895 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 94 (2006)] (‘[t]he fact that a per…

cited Cited "see, e.g." Reyes v. City of Bridgeport

Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low

Practice Book § 11-19; see also Irving v. Firehouse Associates, LLC, 95 Conn. App. 713, 720-21 , 898 A.2d 270 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 90 (2006).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Owen

Conn. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low

See, e.g., State v. Ortiz, 95 Conn. App. 69 , 77 n.2, 895 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 94 (2006). 3 With regard to the court’s reliance on the doctrine of consent, the defendant claims that the court’s factual finding that Smith had agreed to the police entering and searching her residence was not supported by the evidence.

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Martin v. Martin (2×)

Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low

That standard of review reflects the sound policy that the trial court has the unique opportunity to view the parties and their testimony, and is therefore in the best position to assess all of the circumstances surrounding a dissolution action, including such factors as the demeanor and the attitude of the parties.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sander v. Sander, 96 Conn. App. 102, 105 , 899 A.2d 670 (2006); see also Purnell v. Purnell, 95 Conn. App. 677, 685 , 897 A.2d 717 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 91 (2006).

connappct	0R/0Y/14G	40
conn	0R/0Y/5G	11
connsuperct	0R/0Y/0G	1