green
Positive treatment
8.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Patel
(2×)
See State v. William C. , 103 Conn. App. 508 , 520 n.6, 930 A.2d 753 ("[t]he defendant did not object at trial, however, to the court's instructions, and, therefore, the unpreserved claim of instructional error is not reviewable"), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 928 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007). 18 The judgment is affirmed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See State v. William C., 103 Conn. App. 508, 510 , 930 A.2d 753 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 928 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
Anatra v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS OF MADISON
(2×)
See generally Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 613 , 931 A.2d 319 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
WILLIAM C. v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See State v. William C., 103 Conn. App. 508 , 930 A.2d 753 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 928 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007).
cited
Cited "see"
Taylor v. Pervis
See Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 603-604 , 931 A.2d 319 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kraiza v. Planning & Zoning Commission
(2×)
See Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 612 , 931 A.2d 319 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007); Quality Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 55 Conn. App. 533, 540, 738 A.2d 1157 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. State Board of Labor Relations, 111 Conn. App. 666, 672 , 961 A.2d 451 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 901 , 967 A.2d 112 (2009); see also *589 Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 611 , 931 A.2d 319 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Papic v. Burke, 113 Conn. App. 198, 210-11 , 965 A.2d 633 (2009).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. ADEYEMI
(4×)
Also, the limiting instruction, given during the court’s charge to the jury, minimized any unduly prejudicial impact. 4 See State v. Anderson, 86 Conn. App. 854, 870 , 864 A.2d 35 (jury presumed to follow court’s instructions absent clear evidence to contrary), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1031 (2005); see also State v. William C., 103 Conn. App. 508, 520 , 930 A.2d 753 (jury presumed to have followed court’s limiting instructions, which serve to lessen any prejudice from admission of prior misconduct evidence), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 928 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Papic v. Burke
“This substantial evidence standard is highly deferential *211 and permits less judicial scrutiny than a clearly erroneous or weight of the evidence standard of review.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. State Board of Labor Relations, 111 Conn. App. 666, 672 , 961 A.2d 451 (2008), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 901 , 967 A.2d 112 (2009); see also Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 103 Conn. App. 601, 611 , 931 A.2d 319 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 929 , 934 A.2d 244 (2007).
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Angel ROBLES.
v.
Angel ROBLES.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 16, 2007.
Published
Joseph A. Jaumann, special public defender, in support of the petition.
Frederick W. Fawcett, supervisory assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 103 Conn.App. 383, 930 A.2d 27 (2007), is denied.