green
Positive treatment
10.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Smith
See State v. Wright, 107 Conn. App. 152, 157 , 944 A.2d 991 (claim that sentence was illegal because conviction violated double jeopardy does not fall within purview of Practice Book § 43-22), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 933 , 958 A.2d 1247 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hamann v. Carl
See Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316, 331 , 951 A.2d 587 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 157 (2008). ‘‘It is a well established principle of appellate procedure that the appellant has the duty of providing this court with a record adequate to afford review. . . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Nietupski v. Del Castillo
See Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316 , 330 n.13, 951 A.2d 587 (trial court’s denial of motion ‘‘includes implicit findings that it resolved any credibility determinations and any conflicts in testimony in a manner that supports its ruling’’), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 157 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lopes v. Ferrari
See Blum v. Blum , 109 Conn. App. 316 , 331, 951 A.2d 587 ( [w]hen the decision of the trial court does not make the factual predicates of its findings clear, we will, in the absence of a motion for articulation, assume that the trial court acted properly ...), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 157 (2008)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hirschfeld v. Machinist , 131 Conn. App. 364 , 370-71 n.5, 27 A.3d 395 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 947 , 30 A.3d 1 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Jacklyn H.
Accordingly, [i]n determining the meaning of a statute . . . we are mindful that the legis- lature is presumed to have intended a just and rational result.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Teresa T. v. Ragaglia, 272 Conn. 734, 748 , 865 A.2d 428 (2005); accord Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316, 322 , 951 A.2d 587 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 157 (2008); Gervais v. Gervais, 91 Conn. App. 840, 855 , 882 A.2d 731 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 919 , 888 A.2d 88 (2005). ‘‘[W]e look not only at the provision at issue, but also to the broader statutory scheme to ensure the coher- …
discussed
Cited "see"
Grasso v. Grasso
See id., 330 n.13 (court’s denial of a motion includes ‘‘implicit findings that it resolved any credibility determinations and any conflicts in testimony in a manner that supports its ruling’’). 7 General Statutes § 52-212a provides in relevant part: ‘‘Unless otherwise provided by law and except in such cases in which the court has continuing jurisdiction, a civil judgment . . . rendered in the Superior Court may not be opened or set aside unless a motion to open or set aside is filed within four months following the date on which it was rendered . . . .’’ See also Practice …
cited
Cited "see"
Nation-Bailey v. Bailey
See Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316, 322 , 951 A.2d 587 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 157 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hirschfeld v. MacHinist
See Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316, 331 , 951 A.2d 587 (“[w]hen the decision of the trial court does not make the factual predicates of its findings clear, we will, in the *371 absence of a motion for articulation, assume that the trial court acted properly” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 157 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
Schwarz v. Schwarz
(2×)
See Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn.App. 316, 323-24 , 951 A.2d 587 ("court must have the ability to compare the [plaintiff's] financial needs at different points in time in order to determine whether those needs either have increased or have decreased over time"), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 157 (2008).
cited
Cited "see"
McKenna v. Delente
See Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316, 331 , *171 951 A.2d 587 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 157 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
N. R. v. M. P.
P. and to draw necessary inferences therefrom.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see also Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316, 329 , 951 A.2d 587 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 157 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Smith
See State v. Casiano, 282 Conn. 614 , 627–28, 922 A.2d 1065 (2007); see also State v. Francis, 322 Conn. 247 , 267–68, 140 A.3d 927 (2016). 3 All subsequent references to the trial court in this opinion are to Judge Strackbein. 4 Specifically, Judge Bishop compared State v. Wright, 107 Conn. App. 152 , 156–57, 944 A.2d 991 (trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain motion to correct illegal sentence alleging that defendant’s conviction as accessory to murder after being ‘‘ ‘acquitted’ ’’ as principal to murder violated double jeopardy clause because ‘‘the defen…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Przekopski v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals
See, e.g., Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn.App. 316, 329 , 951 A.2d 587 , ("the trial court is the sole arbiter of witness credibility, [and] it has discretion to reject even uncontested evidence" [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 157 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Przekopski v. Zoning Board of Appeals
See, e.g., Blum v. Blum, 109 Conn. App. 316, 329 , 951 A.2d 587 , (“the trial court is the sole arbiter of witness credibility, [and] it has discretion to reject even uncontested evidence” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 929 , 958 A.2d 157 (2008).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Starks
See, e.g., State v. Wright, 107 Conn. App. 152, 157-58 , 944 A.2d 991 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 933 , 958 A.2d 1247 (2008).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re DAMIEN N.
18234.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 25, 2008.
Published
John E. Tucker, assistant attorney general, in support of the petition.
The petition by the department of children and families for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 29909) is granted, limited to the following issue:
"Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss this appeal for lack of a final judgment where the judgment appealed was a mandatory injunction removing the assigned department of children and families' social worker from a juvenile session case?"
The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18234.