green
Positive treatment
4.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dolan v. Dolan
See Clark v. Clark, 66 Conn. App. 657, 665 , 785 A.2d 1162 (‘‘[t]he court is not required, however, to consider all of the § 46b-82 criteria when modification of alimony is sought pursuant to a dissolution agreement’’), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 901 , 789 A.2d 990 (2001); see also Fazio v. Fazio, 162 Conn. App. 236 , 243–44, 131 A.3d 1162 (‘‘a separa- tion agreement that has been incorporated into a disso- lution decree and its resulting judgment must be regarded as a contract and construed in accordance with the general principles governing contracts’’ (inter- nal quotation m…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Spencer
See State v. Hampton, 66 Conn. App. 357, 371 , 784 A.2d 444 , cert. denied, 259 Conn. 901 , 789 A.2d 992 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Bijur v. Bijur
See Clark v. Clark, 66 Conn. App. 657, 668 , 785 A.2d 1162 , cert. denied, 259 Conn. 901 , 789 A.2d 990 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Santiago
Such expressions of personal opinion are not an appropriate way to highlight the evidence presented or to suggest a reasonable conclusion that could be drawn by the jury; see State v. Hampton, 66 Conn. App. 357, 373 , 784 A.2d 444 , cert. denied, 259 Conn. 901 , 789 A.2d 992 (2001); but rather constitute a form of unsworn testimony that is difficult for the jury to ignore because of the prosecutor’s special position in the judicial system.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gay v. Gay
See Clark v. Clark, 66 Conn. App. 657, 665 , 785 A.2d 1162 (same § 46b-82 criteria are relevant in deciding whether decree may be modified as are relevant in making initial award of alimony), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 901 , 789 A.2d 990 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Friend
These facts lead us to conclude that, because he withdrew his speedy trial motion and did not file a timely motion to dismiss, ‘‘he is deemed to have waived his right to the statutory protection afforded by § 54-82m.’’ Id., 99; see also State v. Hampton, 66 Conn. App. 357, 368 , 784 A.2d 444 , cert. denied, 259 Conn. 901 , 789 A.2d 992 (2001).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Szegda v. Szegda
Mathis v. Mathis, 30 Conn. App. 292, 294 , 620 A.2d 174 (1993); see also Clark v. Clark, 66 Conn. App. 657, 668 , 785 A.2d 1162 , cert. denied, 259 Conn. 901 , 789 A.2d 990 (2001).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Arceniega
Ed. 2d 1062 (1991); see also State v. Liebowitz, 65 Conn. App. 788 , 791 n.1, 783 A.2d 1108 , cert. denied, 259 Conn. 901 , 789 A.2d 992 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Thompson
See footnote 3; State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403, 422-23 , 660 A.2d 337 (1995) (concluding that challenged jury instruction on uses of out-of-court statements did not, as presented, raise constitutional claim); see also State v. Liebowitz, 65 Conn. App. 788 , 805 n.7, 783 A.2d 1108 (Golding review would be declined on claim if defendant treated issue as evidentiary and it was patently nonconstitutional), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 901 , 789 A.2d 992 (2001).
MARY CLARK
v.
RICHARD CLARK
v.
RICHARD CLARK
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 20, 2001.
Robert S. Kolesnik, in support of the petition., David J. Bozzuto, in opposition.
Published
The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 66 Conn. App. 657 (AC 19087), is denied.
VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.