green
Positive treatment
13.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Russo v. Thornton
(2×)
See Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn. App. 441, 445 , 8 A.3d 545 (2010) (‘‘[w]hen the record does not contain either a memorandum of decision or a transcribed copy of an oral decision signed by the trial court stating the reasons for its decision, this court frequently has declined to review the claims on appeal because the appellant has failed to provide the court with an adequate record for review’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gansel
(2×)
See Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn.App. 441 , 445-46, 8 A.3d 545 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
O'Halpin v. O'Halpin
(2×)
In comparing the provisions of the original judgment with respect to the sale of the marital residence with the July 23, 2012 ruling reducing the listing price; see Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn. App. 441, 447 , 8 A.3d 545 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011); we conclude that the court’s postjudgment ruling effectuated rather than modified the original property distribution.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Richard S.
(2×)
See State v. Elson, 125 Conn. App. 328, 365-66 , 9 A.3d 731 (2010) (“speculation and conjecture . . . have no place in appellate review” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. granted on other grounds, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harris v. Hamilton
(2×)
See State v. Elson, 125 Conn. App. 328, 356 , 9 A.3d 731 (2010), cert. granted, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011). 5 Moreover, the plaintiff did not request that we review this claim pursuant to the plain error doctrine nor did he adequately brief the claim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Parisi v. Parisi
(2×)
See Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn. App. 441, 446-47 , 8 A.3d 545 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Jarelle G.
(2×)
See State v. Elson, 125 Conn. App. 328, 340-59 , 9 A.3d 731 (2010) (en banc), cert. granted, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Przekopski v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals
(2×)
The order provided: "Judgment shall enter in the amount of $28,000, which represents [twenty-eight] days of violation of the court's order." Pursuant to our plenary review over the construction of a trial court's orders and judgments; see Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn.App. 441, 447-48 , 8 A.3d 545 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011); we construe the order as a finding of wilful noncompliance with the court's March 19, 2008 order.
discussed
Cited "see"
Przekopski v. Zoning Board of Appeals
(2×)
The order provided: “Judgment shall enter in the amount of $28,000, which represents [twenty-eight] days of violation of the court’s order.” Pursuant to our plenary review over the construction of a trial court’s orders and judgments; see Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn. App. 441, 447-48 , 8 A.3d 545 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011); we construe the order as a finding of wilful noncompliance with the court’s March 19, 2008 order.
discussed
Cited "see"
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. GIANOPOULOS
(2×)
The appellant is responsible for providing this court with an adequate record for review; see Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn. App. 441, 444 , 8 A.3d 545 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011); Practice Book § 61-10; which includes providing a memorandum of decision or a signed transcript of the court’s oral decision pursuant to Practice Book § 64-1.
discussed
Cited "see"
Balaska v. Balaska
(2×)
In light of the defendant’s failure to request review pursuant to Golding or to present an analysis consistent with the principles codified in Golding; see State v. Elson, 125 Conn. App. 328, 353-54 , 9 A.3d 731 (2010) (en banc), cert. granted, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011); we decline to review this claim.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gordon v. Gordon
(2×)
On occasion, we have overlooked an appellant’s failure to ensure that the trial court sign a transcript of an oral decision provided that the appellant had filed an unsigned transcript and “we [were] able to identify readily the court’s decision, encompassing its findings . . . .” (Emphasis added.) State v. Payne, 121 Conn. App. 308, 312 , 996 A.2d 302 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 919 , 996 A.2d 1193 (2010); see also Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn. App. 441, 445-46 , 8 A.3d 545 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Harlow P.
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Elson, 125 Conn. App. 328, 353-54 , 9 A.3d 731 (2010) (outlining requirements for sufficiently requesting extraordinary review), cert. granted on other grounds, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011). 10 The question remains whether the claim arose subsequent to trial.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Montagnese v. Spicer
(2×)
See, e.g., Stechel v. Foster, 125 Conn. App. 441, 445 , 8 A.3d 545 (2010) (“[w]hen the record does not contain either a memorandum of decision or a transcribed copy of an oral decision signed by the trial court stating the reasons for its decision, this court frequently has declined to review the claims on appeal because the appellant has failed to provide the court with an adequate record for review” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ira B. STECHEL
v.
Patricia Lynn FOSTER.
v.
Patricia Lynn FOSTER.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 20, 2011.
Published
Heidi E. Opinsky, Westport, in support of the petition.
Joseph T. O'Connor, Stamford, in opposition.
The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 125 Conn.App. 441, 8 A.3d 545 (2010), is denied.