green
Positive treatment
4.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Arthurs
See State v. Cummings, 46 Conn. App. 661, 669 , 701 A.2d 663 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 940 , 702 A.2d 645 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Hill
See State v. Cummings, 46 Conn. App. 661 , 667 n.3, 701 A.2d 663 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 940 , 702 A.2d 645 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Snyder
See State v. Snyder, supra, 551 . ‘Our adoption of this interpretive gloss provides a sufficient core of meaning to remedy any facial vagueness that might otherwise exist.’ State v. Dyson, 238 Conn. 784, 799 , 680 A.2d 1306 (1996).” (Emphasis added.)State v. Cummings, 46 Conn. App. 661, 673-74 , 701 A.2d 663 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 940 , 702 A.2d 645 (1997). 4 We therefore conclude that § 53a-183 (a) (2) is not unconstitutionally vague on its face.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Robert S.
See, e.g., State v. Cummings , 46 Conn. App. 661 , 682, 701 A.2d 663 (sufficient evidence that defendant drove by victim's house because jury could draw reasonable inferences from testimony of victim that she identified defendant's truck, which was known to her, driving past her apartment), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 940 , 702 A.2d 645 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Weaver v. McKnight
See, e.g., Wyszomierski v. Siracusa, 290 Conn. 225 , 233–36, 963 A.2d 943 (2009) (upholding trial court’s decision to allow treating physician to testify about opinions formed during treatment, but not about standard of care); cf. Milliun v. New Milford Hospital, supra, 310 Conn. 741 and n.20 (noting, without reviewing, Appel- late Court’s conclusion that treating physicians can tes- tify to opinions formed during treatment); see also Lane v. Stewart, 46 Conn. App. 172, 176 , 698 A.2d 929 (1997) (‘‘[t]here is no justification for a rule that would wholly exempt experts from placing b…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Weaver v. McKnight
See, e.g., Wyszomierski v. Siracusa, 290 Conn. 225 , 233–36, 963 A.2d 943 (2009) (upholding trial court’s decision to allow treating physician to testify about opinions formed during treatment, but not about standard of care); cf. Milliun v. New Milford Hospital, supra, 310 Conn. 741 and n.20 (noting, without reviewing, Appel- late Court’s conclusion that treating physicians can tes- tify to opinions formed during treatment); see also Lane v. Stewart, 46 Conn. App. 172, 176 , 698 A.2d 929 (1997) (‘‘[t]here is no justification for a rule that would wholly exempt experts from placing b…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Amado
Id.; see also State v. Villafane, 45 Conn. App. 110, 115 , 694 A.2d 802 [cert. denied, 241 Conn. 926 , 697 A.2d 362 ] (1997).” State v. Cummings, 46 Conn. App. 661, 679 , 701 A. 2d 663 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 940 , 702 A.2d 645 (1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MARCUS L. LANE
v.
JAMES STEWART
v.
JAMES STEWART
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 28, 1997.
Robert L. Fisher, Jr., in support of the petition., John K. McDonald, in opposition.
Published
The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 46 Conn. App. 172 (AC 15476), is denied.
MCDONALD, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Robert L. Fisher, Jr., in support of the petition. John K. McDonald, in opposition. Decided October 28, 1997