green
Positive treatment
3.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Han
The only right that the defendant acquires by the granting of a motion for accelerated rehabilitation is the right to a dismissal of the underlying criminal charge if the defen- dant satisfactorily completes the period of pretrial pro- bation imposed.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fanning, 98 Conn. App. 111, 115 , 908 A.2d 573 (2006), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 904 , 916 A.2d 46 (2007). ‘‘If the defendant refuses to accept, or, having accepted, violates such conditions [as the court shall order], the defendant’s case shall be brought to trial.’’ General Stat- utes �…
cited
Cited "see"
Tisdale v. Riverside Cemetery Ass'n
See Emigrant Savings Bank v. Erickson, 46 Conn. App. 51, 53-54 , 696 A.2d 1057 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 921 , 701 A.2d 341 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Combs
See Emigrant Savings Bank v. Erickson, 46 Conn. App. 51, 53-54 , 696 A.2d 1057 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 921 , 701 A.2d 341 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chase Manhattan Bank v. AECO Elevator Co.
See Emigrant Savings Bank v. Erickson, 46 Conn. App. 51, 53-54 , 696 A.2d 1057 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 921 , 701 A.2d 341 (1997); Alix v. Leech, supra, 45 Conn. App. 4 -5; Sinnott v. Sinnott, 44 Conn. App. 153 -54, 687 A.2d 556 (1997); Dime Savings Bank of Wallingford v. Cornaglia, 33 Conn. App. 549, 553-56 , 636 A.2d 1370 , cert. denied, 229 Conn. 907 , 640 A.2d 120 (1994) (appeal withdrawn October 17, 1994); Holmes v. Holmes, supra, 32 Conn. App. 319 -20; State v. Rios, supra, 30 Conn. App. 715 -16; see also Cohen v. Cohen, 41 Conn. App. 163, 168-69 , 674 A.2d 869 (1996); State v. Hoepling…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jerzy G.
See, e.g., State v. Fanning , supra, at 120 , 908 A.2d 573 ; see State v. Kevalis , supra, 313 Conn. at 600-601 , 99 A.3d 196 ; see also State v. Trahan , 45 Conn. App. 722 , 732, 697 A.2d 1153 (''[i]f the trial court determines that the defendant did not fulfill the conditions of probation, the charges will not be dismissed and the defendant may be required to go to trial'' [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 924 , 701 A.2d 660 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Board of Police Commissioners v. Stanley
See State v. Angelo, 25 Conn. App. 235, 239-40 , 594 A.2d 24 (finding that motion to grant accelerated rehabilitation is not final judgment for purposes of appeal and that right of appeal does not ripen until charges dismissed), cert. denied, 220 Conn. 911 , 597 A.2d 335 (1991); see also State v. Trahan, 45 Conn. App. 722, 732 , 697 A.2d 1153 (“only right that the defendant may earn under the accelerated rehabilitation statute is the right to a dismissal of the charges against him, a right that is expressly conditioned on satisfactory completion of the period of probation” [internal quotat…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Machado
See, e.g., Emigrant Savings Bank v. Erickson, 46 Conn. App. 51, 53-54 , 696 A.2d 1057 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 921 , 701 A.2d 341 (1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ENSIGN-BICKFORD REALTY CORPORATION
v.
ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SIMSBURY
v.
ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SIMSBURY
SC 15776.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 24, 1997.
Brian R. Smith, in support of the petition., Jean M. DAquila, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 17131) is granted, limited to the following issue:
“Is an appeal from a final judgment of the trial court rendered pursuant to General Statutes § 8-30g governing affordable housing land use appeals subject to the certification requirements of General Statutes § 8-8 (o)?”