Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc., 744 A.2d 439 (Conn. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc., 744 A.2d 439 (Conn. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
59 citation events (43 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Hamilton (conn, 2025-07-01)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hamilton (6×) also: Cited "see"
Conn. · 2025 · confidence medium
The prosecutor called Carter as a witness at trial, and, in response to the first question asked on direct examination, Carter stated: ‘‘I can’t go through with this, man.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 550.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Eaton
Conn. App. Ct. · 2000 · confidence medium
Therefore, “[t]his is not the situation where a witness did not testify at trial at all . . . or where the trial court completely precluded inquiry into a particular area.” (Citation omitted.) Id., 559.
cited Cited "see" Fenner v. Hartford Courant Co.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marshall v. O’Keefe, 55 Conn. App. 801, 804-805 , 740 A.2d 909 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 918 , 744 A.2d 438 (2000).
cited Cited "see" State v. Anderson
Conn. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Portee, 55 Conn. App. 544 , 560 n.12, 740 A.2d 868 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 920 , 744 A.2d 439 (2000).
cited Cited "see" State v. Corbin
Conn. App. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See id., 560-61 n.12.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Robinson
Conn. App. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
They are an extraordinary remedy to be invoked only when circumstances are such that the issue at hand, while not rising to the level of a constitutional violation, is nonetheless of utmost seriousness, not only for the integrity of a particular trial but also for the perceived fairness of the judicial system as a whole.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hines, 243 Conn. 796, 815 , 709 A.2d 522 (1998); see State v. Portee, 55 Conn. App. 544, 569-70 , 740 A.2d 868 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 920 , 744 A.2d 439 (2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TIMOTHY P. TAFT
v.
WHEELABRATOR PUTNAM, INC.
SC 16241.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 19, 2000.
744 A.2d 439
Sheila A. Huddleston, Joseph P. Williams and John E. Wertam, in support of the petition., Ernest J. Cotnoir, in opposition.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 359 (AC 18064), is granted, limited to the following issue:

[*919] The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16241. Sheila A. Huddleston, Joseph P. Williams and John E. Wertam, in support of the petition. Ernest J. Cotnoir, in opposition. Decided January 19, 2000
“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the legislature’s validating act could not cure a zoning commission’s late publication of notice of its decision on a zoning application?”

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.