green
Positive treatment
5.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Mitchell v. State
See Roberto v. Honeywell, Inc., 33 Conn. App. 619 , 625–26, 637 A.2d 405 , cert. denied, 229 Conn. 909 , 642 A.2d 1205 (1994); Segretario v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 9 Conn. App. 355, 362 , 519 A.2d 76 (1986); see also Alvarado v. Commissioner of Correction, 75 Conn. App. 894 , 895–96, 818 A.2d 797 (rejecting argument that trial court had affirmative duty, sua sponte, to inquire into reasons for untimely petition for certification to appeal), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 903 , 823 A.2d 1220 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ives v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
See O’Rourke v. Commissioner of Motor Vehi- cles, 33 Conn. App. 501, 508 , 636 A.2d 409 , cert. denied, 229 Conn. 909 , 642 A.2d 1205 (1994); State v. Barlow, 30 Conn. App. 36, 41 , 618 A.2d 579 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Finley v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
See O’Rourke v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 33 Conn. App. 501, 508-509 , 636 A.2d 409 (inferences drawn from totality of circumstances provide sufficient evidence to establish operation), cert. denied, 229 Conn. 909 , 642 A.2d 1205 (1994). *426 In fact, this court has found sufficient evidence of the identity of the operator where there were no witnesses and the plaintiff was not in the vehicle at issue.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bria v. Ventana Corp.
Although the plaintiff correctly notes that this claim is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard; see Roberto v. Honeywell, Inc., 33 Conn. App. 619, 624 , 637 A.2d 405 , cert. denied, 229 Conn. 909 , 642 A.2d 1205 (1994); we fail to find any articulation by the trial court of any reasons for its denial of the plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint during trial.
cited
Cited "see"
Wellspeak v. Commissioner, No. Cv 98 0492611s (Mar. 9, 1999)
See O'Rourke v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 33 Conn. App. 501 , 508 , cert. denied, 229 Conn. 909 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gillogly v. Comm., Dmv, No. Cv 97 0059330 (May 1, 1998)
See CT Page 5881 O'Rourke v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 33 Conn. App. 501 , 506 , 636 A.2d 409 , cert. denied, 229 Conn. 909 , 642 A.2d 1205 (1994); Kirei v. Hadley, supra , 47 Conn. App. 451 ; Wilkinson v. Hadley, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 558016 (July 1, 1996, Maloney, J.); Jaroszewski v. Delponte, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford at Milford, Docket No. 032258 (August 30, 1990, Fuller, J.).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harte v. Department of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv97-0574057 (Jan. 8, 1998)
See, O'Rourke v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 33 Conn. App. 501 , cert. denied 229 Conn. 909 (1994) wherein the driver was not observed operating and inferences were also allowed as to the time of operation.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schoolhouse Corp. v. Wood
“Good cause” is defined as “ ‘a substantial reason amounting in law to a legal excuse for failing to perform an act required by law [and] [l]egally sufficient ground or reason.’ Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990); see also Slifkin v. Condec Corp., 13 Conn. App. 538, 549 , 538 A.2d 231 (1988).” Roberto v. Honeywell, Inc., 33 Conn. App. 619, 626 , 637 A.2d 405 , cert. denied, 229 Conn. 909 , 42 A.2d 1205 (1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stacia L. Roberto
v.
Honeywell, Inc.
v.
Honeywell, Inc.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Apr 7, 1994.
Andrew J. O’Keefe, in support of the petition., Karen L. Murdoch, in opposition.
Published
The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 33 Conn. App. 619 (AC 11705), is denied.