green
Positive treatment
9.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Frederik H.
See State v. Rice, 167 Conn. App. 615 , 622 n.4, 142 A.3d 1267 (one can have more than one intent at given time), cert. denied, 323 Conn. 932 , 150 A.3d 232 (2016).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Frederik H.
See State v. Rice, 167 Conn. App. 615 , 622 n.4, 142 A.3d 1267 (one can have more than one intent at given time), cert. denied, 323 Conn. 932 , 150 A.3d 232 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cimmino v. Marcoccia
See Szymonik v. Szymonik , 167 Conn. App. 641 , 656-57, 144 A.3d 457 ("[i]t is a fundamental tenet of due process that no court will proceed to the adjudication of a matter involving conflicting rights and interests, until all persons directly concerned in the event have been actually or constructively notified of the pendency of the proceeding, and given reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard ... in sufficient time to prepare their positions on the issues involved" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 323 Conn. 931 , 150 A.3d 232 (2016) ; see also Statewide Grievance Com…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Meadows
See State v. Baker , 168 Conn. App. 19 , 21 n.5, 145 A.3d 955 , cert. denied, 323 Conn. 932 , 150 A.3d 232 (2016). 5 Under the well established principles of Golding , as revised in In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation exists and deprived the defen…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Bester
See, e.g., State v. Rice, 167 Conn. App. 615, 627 , 142 A.3d 1267 (rejecting confrontation clause claim challenging prosecutor’s inquiry of witness because questions are not evidence), cert. denied, 323 Conn. 932 , 150 A.3d 232 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cockayne v. Bristol Hospital, Inc.
To rule otherwise would permit trial by ambuscade.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ferri v. Powell-Ferri, 317 Conn. 223 , 236–37, 116 A.3d 297 (2015); see also Szy- monik v. Szymonik, 167 Conn. App. 641, 650 , 144 A.3d 457 (party cannot adopt one position at trial and then different one on appeal), cert. denied, 323 Conn. 931 , 150 A.3d 232 (2016).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rivera
Given the present circumstances, in which the defendant may seek and obtain any appropriate redress before the trial court, we are not persuaded that ... review of the claim *278 under Golding ... is warranted ...." Id., at 592 , 997 A.2d 546 ; see also State v. Baker , 168 Conn.App. 19 , 21 n.6, 145 A.3d 955 ("[t]his court previously has recognized that [i]t is not appropriate to review an unpreserved claim [pertaining to a motion to correct] an illegal sentence for the first time on appeal" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 323 Conn. 932 , 150 A.3d 232 (2016).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stephanie SZYMONIK
v.
Peter SZYMONIK
v.
Peter SZYMONIK
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 25, 2016.
Published
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 167 Conn.App. 641, 144 A.3d 457 (2016), is denied.