In re Eden F., 717 A.2d 234 (Conn. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Eden F., 717 A.2d 234 (Conn. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
92 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. City of Hartford (connappct, 2012-09-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. City of Hartford (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bancroft v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 48 Conn. App. 391, 404 , 710 A.2d 807 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 917 , 717 A.2d 234 (1998).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Glanz v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Bancroft v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 48 Conn. App. 391 , 401–403, 710 A.2d 807 (permissive inference or presumption allows but does not require trier of fact to infer elemental fact from proof by prosecutor), cert. denied, 245 Conn. 917 , 717 A.2d 234 (1998); see also Reid v. Landsberger, 123 Conn. App. 260, 283 , 1 A.3d 1149 (where words of statute are plain and unambiguous, intent of drafters derived from words used), cert. denied, 298 Conn. 933 , 10 A.3d 517 (2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
IN RE EDEN F.
SC 15965.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 2, 1998.
717 A.2d 234
Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, in support of the petition., Roger E. Bunker, in opposition.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

The petition by the commissioner of children and families for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 290 (AC 16417), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that: (1) the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, was required to prove that she had made reasonable efforts to reunite both children with the respondent mother; and (2) the trial court’s findings in this respect were clearly erroneous?”