Gianetti v. Fortis Ins. Co., 961 A.2d 422 (Conn. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Gianetti v. Fortis Ins. Co., 961 A.2d 422 (Conn. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (37 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Lopez (connappct, 2017-10-31)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Lopez
Conn. App. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 110 Conn. App. 70, 86 , 954 A.2d 202 (‘‘[r]obing garden variety claims [of an evidentiary nature] in the majestic garb of consti- tutional claims does not make such claims constitu- tional in nature’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 954 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Lopez
Conn. App. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith , 110 Conn.App. 70 , 86, 954 A.2d 202 ("[r]obing garden variety claims [of an evidentiary nature] in the majestic garb of constitutional claims does not make such claims constitutional in nature" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 954 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Collymore
Conn. App. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith , 110 Conn.App. 70 , 86, 954 A.2d 202 ("[r]obing garden variety claims [of an evidentiary nature] in the majestic garb of constitutional claims does not make such claims constitutional in nature" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 954 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Gibson (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 110 Conn. App. 70, 84 , 954 A.2d 202 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 954 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008); see also State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414, 436 , 902 A.2d 636 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kaufman v. Synnott (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2026 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also O’Donnell v. Waterbury, 111 Conn. App. 1 , 4–5, 958 A.2d 163 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 959 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008); State v. Booker, 28 Conn. App. 34 , 38–39, 611 A.2d 878 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 919 , 614 A.2d 826 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 916 , 113 S. Ct. 1271 , 122 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ruiz v. Warden
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
Cabral v. Commissioner of Correction, 108 Conn. App. 1, 13-14 , 946 A.2d 1278 , cert. denied, 288 Conn. 915 , 954 A.2d 183 (2008); see also Thergood v. Commissioner of Correction, 109 Conn. App. 710 , 952 A.2d 854 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 953 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Rojas
Conn. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Smith, 110 Conn. App. 70, 77 , 954 A.2d 202 (eyewitness identification of defendant may be reliable even if witness observed defendant for only seconds), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 954 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." LaSALLE BANK, NAT. ASS'N v. Bialobrzeski (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., O'Donnell v. Waterbury, 111 Conn.App. 1, 5 , 958 A.2d 163 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 959 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008). [12] In its brief, the plaintiff argues that the defendant failed to preserve the issue presented or timely file his appeal because the appeal was not filed within twenty days of the date the court denied the motion to dismiss.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." LaSalle Bank, National Ass'n v. Bialobrzeski (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., O’Donnell v. Waterbury, 111 Conn. App. 1, 5 , 959 A.2d 163 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 959 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008). 12 In its brief, the plaintiff argues that the defendant failed to preserve the issue presented or timely file his appeal because the appeal was not filed within twenty days of the date the court denied the motion to dismiss.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. McClelland
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
See State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416-17 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980) (evidence of prior child abuse probative on issue of intent in child homicide); see also State v. Smith, 110 Conn. App. 70, 79 , 954 A.2d 202 (intent generally inferred from conduct or proven by circumstantial evidence because direct evidence of defendant’s state of mind rarely available), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 954 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stevenson v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Thergood v. Commissioner of Correction, 109 Conn. App. 710, 714 , 952 A.2d 854 (“[t]o satisfy the prejudice prong, a claimant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 953 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles D. GIANETTI
v.
FORTIS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 11, 2008.
961 A.2d 422
Published

Charles D. Gianetti, pro se, in support of the petition.

Laura F. Baldini, Farmington, and Mark A. Shiffrin, New Haven, in opposition.

The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 29439) is denied.