green
Positive treatment
4.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Griswold
Because hearsay that does not fall into one exception to the hearsay rule may still be admissible if it falls within another exception; see Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850, 868 , 797 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 A.2d 212 (2002); the question of whether the videos and their written summaries are admissible under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception requires its own analysis independent of the one undertaken pursu- ant to the tender years exception.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Tayler F.
Consistent with this rationale, the Appellate Court has concluded that the residual exception to the hearsay rule, while generally invoked “only in exceptional circumstances ... is particularly well suited for the admission of statements by victims of child abuse and has been used in federal and state courts for this purpose.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn. App. 530, 540 , 568 A.2d 1058 , cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805 , 574 A.2d 220 (1990); accord Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850, 854 , 797 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , …
discussed
Cited "see"
Dwyer v. Commissioner of Correction
See Dwyer v. Commissioner of Correction, 69 Conn. App. 551, 563 , 796 A.2d 1212 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 A.2d 212 (2002). *840 Thereafter, in 2003, the petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that Pattis was ineffective in failing to argue properly and then raise in his 1998 habeas appeal Gailucci’s failure to seek instructions on lesser included offenses at the petitioner’s criminal trial.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ferris v. Faford
See Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850, 854 , 797 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 A.2d 212 (2002). 4 General Statutes § 45a-257 provides in relevant part that “a will or codicil shall not be revoked in any other manner except by burning, cancelling, tearing or obliterating it by the testator or by some person in the testator’s presence by the testator’s direction, or by a later will or codicil.” 5 General Statutes § 45a-24 provides in relevant part that “[a]ll orders, judgments and decrees of courts of probate, rendered after no…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Daddio v. O'Bara
See, e.g., Dwyer v. Commissioner of Correction, 69 Conn. App. 551 , 561 n.10, 796 A.2d 1212 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 A.2d 212 (2002); State v. Robinson, 38 Conn. App. 598, 615 , 662 A.2d 1295 (1995), rev’d on other grounds, 237 Conn. 238 , 676 A.2d 384 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Aaron L.
In other words, he does not assert that a reviewing court cannot consider whether it “can [still] sustain the admission of the evidence if other proper grounds exist for admission of the statements].” State v. Williams, 48 Conn. App. 361, 367 , 709 A.2d 43 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 907 , 718 A.2d 16 (1998); see State v. Lucas, 63 Conn. App. 263 , 270 n.7, 775 A.2d 338 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930 , 776 A.2d 1148 (2001); see also Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850, 869 , 797 A.2d 1146 (if residual exception properly was applied to statements, then tr…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Aaron L.
See State v. Lucas, 63 Conn. App. 263 , 270 n.7, 775 A.2d 338 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930 , 776 A.2d 1148 (2001); see also Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850, 869 , 797 A.2d 1146 (if residual exception was properly applied to statements, then court’s improper admission of them under medical treatment exception was harmless), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 A.2d 212 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NICHOLE DOE
v.
THAMES VALLEY COUNCIL FOR COMMUNITY ACTION, INC.
v.
THAMES VALLEY COUNCIL FOR COMMUNITY ACTION, INC.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 10, 2002.
JohnB. Farley, George D. Royster, James V. Somers, Ralph W. Johnson III, Erik J. Ness and Henry C. Ide, in support of the petition., Gilbert Shasha, in opposition.
Published
The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 69 Conn. App. 850 (AC 20596/AC 20597), is denied.
SULLIVAN, C. J., and BORDEN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.