Teixeira v. Home Depot, Inc., 176 A.3d 1194 (Conn. 2018). · Go Syfert
Search
Teixeira v. Home Depot, Inc., 176 A.3d 1194 (Conn. 2018). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Mitchell (connappct, 2020-02-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see" State v. Mitchell
Conn. App. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wade, 178 Conn. App. 459, 466 , 175 A.3d 1284 (2017), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 1002 , 176 A.3d 1194 (2018).
cited Cited "see" State v. Adams
Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Wade , 178 Conn. App. 459 , 466, 175 A.3d 1284 (2017), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 1002 , 176 A.3d 1194 (2018).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Tinsley
Conn. App. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
A double jeopardy claim, however, presents a question of law, over which our review is plenary.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bennett, 187 Conn. App. 847, 851 , 204 A.3d 49 , cert. denied, 331 Conn. 924 , 206 A.3d 765 (2019); see also State v. Wade, 178 Conn. App. 459, 466 , 175 A.3d 1284 (2017), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 1002 , 176 A.3d 1194 (2018).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Thompson
Conn. App. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
We note that "[a] violation of a defendant's right against double jeopardy is one of the permissible grounds on which to challenge the legality of a sentence [in a motion to correct an illegal sentence]." State v. Santiago , 145 Conn. App. 374 , 379, 74 A.3d 571 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 942 , 79 A.3d 893 (2013) ; see also State v. Wade , 178 Conn. App. 459 , 466, 175 A.3d 1284 (2017) (defendant properly may raise double jeopardy claim in context of motion to correct illegal sentence), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 1002 , 176 A.3d 1194 (2018).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Pecor
Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Wade , 178 Conn. App. 459 , 465, 175 A.3d 1284 (2017) ("[e]ven if the defendant had raised claims that challenged only some of the counts under which he had been convicted, the fact that he exercised his right to an appeal undermines his argument to an expectation of finality in the sentence originally imposed" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 1002 , 176 A.3d 1194 (2018).
Robert TEIXEIRA
v.
HOME DEPOT, INC.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 18, 2018.
176 A.3d 1194
Published

The plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 173 Conn. App. 594, 164 A.3d 836 (2017), is dismissed.

MULLINS, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.