green
Positive treatment
6.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Haynes (Concurrence & Dissent)
See State v. Hobson, 68 Conn. App. 40, 44 , 789 A.2d 557 (‘‘[a] defendant’s right to testify is . . . protected by his rights to a fair trial, to due process, to present a defense, and to be free from compelled testimony under article XVII of the amendments . . . and . . . article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 910 , 796 A.2d 557 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Lederle v. Spivey
See Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn. App. 173, 187 , 789 A.2d 1104 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 910 , 796 A.2d 556 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sweeney v. Sweeney
“Pendente lite orders necessarily cease to exist once a final judgment in the dispute has been rendered because their puipose is extinguished at that time.” Connolly v. Connolly, 191 Conn. 468, 480 , 464 A.2d 837 (1983); accord Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn. App. 173 , 181 n.3, 789 A.2d 1104 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 910 , 796 A.2d 556 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Zeigler v. Sony Corp. of America
See Gardner v. Pilato, 68 Conn. App. 448 , 791 A.2d 707 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 908 , 795 A.2d 544 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction
In light of that guidance, this court subsequently held that ‘‘Golding review is not available for unpreserved claims of [constitutional] error raised for the first time in a habeas appeal.’’ Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 199, 202 , 848 A.2d 1229 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 914 , 853 A.2d 527 (2004); see also Cupe v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn. App. 262 , 271 n.12, 791 A.2d 614 (‘‘Golding does not grant . . . authority for collateral review and is . . . inappli- cable to habeas proceedings’’), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 908 , 795 A.2d 544 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Kitchens
(2×)
Safford v. Warden, 223 Conn. 180 , 190 n. 12, 612 A.2d 1161 (1992); see also Cupe v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn. App. 262 , 271 n.12, 791 A.2d 614 (“Golding does not grant . . . authority for collateral review and is . . . inapplicable to habeas proceedings”), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 908 , 795 A.2d 544 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shelton v. Commissioner of Correction
Safford v. Warden, 223 Conn. 180 , 190 n.12, 612 A.2d 1161 (1992); see also Cupe v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn. App. 262 , 271 n.12, 791 A.2d 614 (‘Golding does not grant . . . authority for collateral review and is . . . inapplicable to habeas proceedings’), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 908 , 795 A.2d 544 (2002).” Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of *873 Correction, 83 Conn. App. 199, 202 , 848 A.2d 1229 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 914 , 853 A.2d 527 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kennedy v. Kennedy
Although an order modifying custody and visitation postdissolution is an appealable final judgment; see, e.g., Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn. App. 173, 181 , 789 A.2d 1104 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 910 , 796 A.2d 556 (2002); Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn. App. 50, 55-56 , 732 A.2d 808 (1999); in this case, the dispute over the modification of custody and visitation is ongoing, as motions to modify filed by the plaintiff have not yet been adjudicated. 16 In a dissolution action in which custody and visitation are at issue, the court may appoint counsel to represent a minor child to protect the best interest …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of Correction
Safford v. Warden, 223 Conn. 180 , 190 n.12, 612 A.2d 1161 (1992); see also Cupe v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn. App. 262 , 271 n.12, 791 A.2d 614 (“Golding does not grant . . . authority for collateral review and is . . . inapplicable to habeas proceedings”), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 908 , 795 A.2d 544 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gina M. G. v. William C.
The ultimate question on appellate review is whether the trial court could have concluded as it did.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Marlin v. Marlin, 73 Conn. App. 570, 573 , 808 A.2d 707 (2002); see also Ford v. Ford, 68 Conn. App. 173, 188 , 789 A.2d 1104 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 910 , 796 A.2d 556 (2002). “[W]e do not review the evidence to determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could have been reached.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McGinty v. McGinty, 66 Conn. App. 35, 40 , 783 A.2d 1170 (2001); Szczerkowski v. Karmelowicz, 60 Co…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Tyson v. Commissioner of Correction
See, e.g., Cupe v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn. App. 262, 267 , 791 A.2d 614 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 908 , 795 A.2d 544 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
LEONARD JACKSON
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 28, 2002.
Vicki H. Hutchinson, special public defender, in support of the petition., Gerard P. Eisenman, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published
The petitioner Leonard Jackson’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 68 Conn. App. 190 (AC 22127), is denied.