green
Positive treatment
6.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Baronio v. Stubbs
See Emerick v. Emerick, 5 Conn. App. 649, 657 , 502 A.2d 933 (1985), cert. dismissed, 200 Conn. 804 , 510 A.2d 192 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Baronio v. Stubbs
See Emerick v. Emerick , 5 Conn. App. 649 , 657, 502 A.2d 933 (1985), cert. dismissed, 200 Conn. 804 , 510 A.2d 192 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Zitnay v. Zitnay
See Emerick v. Emerick, 5 Conn. App. 649, 656-57 , 502 A.2d 933 (1985), cert. dismissed, 200 Conn. 804 , 510 A.2d 192 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Ceste v. Ceste, No. Fa97 034 28 58 S (Oct. 29, 1998)
See Emerick v. Emerick , 5 Conn. App. 649 (1985), cert. dismissed, 200 Conn. 804 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Henderson
(2×)
Practice Book § 815 (5); A. Spinella, Connecticut Criminal Procedure (1985), pp. 604-605; see State v. Riggs, 7 Conn. App. 180, 184 , 508 A.2d 67 , cert. denied, 200 Conn. 804 , 510 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 852 , 107 S. Ct. 183 , 93 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Bradford v. Herzig
See Reilly v. DiBianco, 6 Conn. App. 556, 565 , 507 A.2d 106 , cert. denied, 200 Conn. 804 , 510 A.2d 193 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
Emerick v. Emerick
See Emerick v. Emerick, 5 Conn. App. 649 , 502 A.2d 933 , cert. dismissed, 200 Conn. 804 , 510 A.2d 192 (1986); see also Emerick v. Emerick, 17 Conn. App. 811 , 551 A.2d 36 (1988) (per curiam), cert. denied, 210 Conn. 811 , 556 A.2d 609 (1989) (the defendant’s appeal from numerous postappeal and postjudgment motions involving claims for modification of custody, financial awards, counsel fees and in defense of contempt orders regarding his failure to comply with financial orders of the dissolution court).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Yale New Haven Hospital
See Reilly v. DiBianco, 6 Conn. App. 556 , 507 A.2d 106 , certif. denied, 200 Conn. 804 , 510 A.2d 192 , 193 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Vaughn
(2×)
See State v. Riggs, 7 Conn. App. 180, 184 , 508 A.2d 67 , cert. denied, 200 Conn. 804 , 510 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 852 , 107 S. Ct. 183 , 93 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe
See Reilly v. DiBianco, 6 Conn. App. 556 , 507 A.2d 106 , cert. denied, 200 Conn. 804 , 510 A.2d 192 (1986); Gutowski v. New Britain, 165 Conn. 50 , 327 A.2d 552 (1973); see also Public Acts 1986, No. 86-338 § 3 (c).
discussed
Cited "see"
L. F. Pace & Sons, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Murteza v. State, 7 Conn. App. 196, 202-203 , 508 A.2d 449 , cert. denied, 200 Conn. 803 , 510 A.2d 191 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
National Assn., Gov. Emp. v. Waterford B. of E., No. 550577 (Jan. 12, 2001)
STANDARD OF REVIEW Section 52-408 of the General Statutes provides that: "An agreement in any written contract, or in a separate writing executed by the parties to any written contract, to settle by arbitration any controversy thereafter arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable and enforceable, except when there exists sufficient cause at law or in equity for the avoidance of written contracts generally." "Arbitration is the voluntary submission, by the interested parties, of an existing or future dispute to a disinterested person or persons for final determination." (Int…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
National Assn., Gov. Emp. v. Waterford B. of E., No. 551699 (Jan. 12, 2001)
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gary Excavating, Inc. v. North Haven , 164 Conn. 119 , 121 , 318 A.2d 84 (1972); see also Harry Skolnick Sons v. Heyman , 7 Conn. App. 175 , 179 , 508 A.2d 64 , cert. denied, 200 Conn. 803 , 510 A.2d 191 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kass v. Schless, No. 553375 (Jun. 27, 2000)
"Arbitration is the voluntary submission, by the interested parties, of an existing or future dispute to a disinterested person or persons for final determination." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gary Excavating, Inc. v. North Haven , 164 Conn. 119 , 121 , 318 A.2d 84 (1972); see also Harry Skolnick Sons v. Heyman , 7 Conn. App. 175 , 179 , 508 A.2d 64 , cert. denied, 200 Conn. 803 , 510 A.2d 191 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Menzies
(2×)
The discretionary power of the state to select an appropriate charge is, of course, “limited in the usual and lawful manner by the facts the prosecutor may be reasonably expected to prove at trial.” State v. Darden, 171 Conn. 677, 682 , 372 A.2d 99 (1976); see also State v. Riggs, 7 Conn. App. 180, 185 , 508 A.2d 67 , cert. denied, 200 Conn. 804 , 510 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 852 , 107 S. Ct. 183 , 93 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Miles v. Perry
Prosser, Torts (4th Ed.) § 52, pp. 313-14; see also Reilly v. DiBianco, 6 Conn. App. 556, 566-73 , 507 A.2d 106 , cert. denied, 200 Conn. 804 , 510 A.2d 192 , 193 (1986), for a discussion of apportionment of damages between joint tortfeasors who have committed concurrent but independent acts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
Emmet Riggs
v.
Emmet Riggs
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
May 28, 1986.
Nicholas P. Cardwell, in support of the petition., Susan C. Marks, in opposition.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 7 Conn. App. 180, is denied.