State v. Martin, 676 A.2d 1376 (Conn. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Martin, 676 A.2d 1376 (Conn. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lindo v. Mullaney (connappct, 2003-08-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Lindo v. Mullaney
Conn. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Martin, 38 Conn. App. 731, 744 , 663 A.2d 1078 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 921 , 676 A.2d 1376 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1044 , 117 S. Ct. 617 , 136 L.
cited Cited "see" Connecticut Nat. Gas Corp. v. Yankee Gas, No. Cv-97-0482269s (Oct. 30, 1998)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Martin , 38 Conn. App. 731 , 742 , 663 A.2d 1078 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 921 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996).
cited Cited "see" State v. Eged
Conn. App. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Martin, 38 Conn. App. 731, 736 , 663 A.2d 1078 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 921 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Cummings
Conn. App. Ct. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Snyder, 40 Conn. App. 544 , 672 A.2d 535 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 921 , 676 A.2d 1375 (1996); State v. Lewtan, 5 Conn. App. 79 , 497 A.2d 60 (1985); State v. Bellamy, 4 Conn. App. 520 , 495 A.2d 724 (1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Buhl
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
The statute specifically requires that the defendant, ‘‘with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person,’’ in this case M, ‘‘communicates with a person . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 53a-183 (a) (2); see also State v. Snyder, 40 Conn. App. 544, 552 , 672 A.2d 535 (‘‘§ 53a-183 [a] [2] plainly states that for a defendant to violate that statute, he must first have the intent to harass, annoy or alarm ‘another’ person, i.e., the intended victim, and, second, he must communicate with ‘a’ person, possibly a third party, in a manner likely to achiev…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Buhl
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
The statute specifically requires that the defendant, ‘‘with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person,’’ in this case M, ‘‘communicates with a person . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 53a-183 (a) (2); see also State v. Snyder, 40 Conn. App. 544, 552 , 672 A.2d 535 (‘‘§ 53a-183 [a] [2] plainly states that for a defendant to violate that statute, he must first have the intent to harass, annoy or alarm ‘another’ person, i.e., the intended victim, and, second, he must communicate with ‘a’ person, possibly a third party, in a manner likely to achiev…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Adgers
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Snyder, 40 Conn. App. 544, 552 , 672 A.2d 535 (applicability of § 53a-183 [a] [2] depends on effect on “the intended victim”), cert, denied, 237 Conn. 921 , 676 A.2d 1375 (1996), on appeal after remand, 49 Conn. App. 617 , 717 A.2d 240 (1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
THOMAS MARTIN, JR.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 6, 1996.
676 A.2d 1376
Hugh F. Keefe and Suzanne L. McAlpine, in support of the petition., Frederick W. Fawcett, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 38 Conn. App. 731 (AC 12797), is denied.

Hugh F. Keefe and Suzanne L. McAlpine, in support of the petition. Frederick W. Fawcett, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided June 6, 1996