green
Positive treatment
Trending · 65 recent citers
9.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McManus v. Roggi
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
This is not to say, however, that evidence indicating a lack of permission is irrelevant to whether the plaintiff has established use under a claim of right.” (Citation omitted.) Id., 873.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Quintiliano
(2×)
Lisiewski v. Seidel, 72 Conn. App. 861, 870 , 806 A.2d 1121 ; see id., 870–71 (in case involving property dispute, when deed at issue contained clear and unam- biguous language, trial court’s determination that plain- tiff’s expert witness testified credibly regarding latent ambiguity in deed did not restrict this court’s plenary review of legal questions regarding proper construction of deeds), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 921 , 812 A.2d 865 (2002), and cert. denied, 262 Conn. 922 , 812 A.2d 865 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brown v. Bridgeport Police Dept.
(2×)
See generally State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173 , 196–98, 807 A.2d 500 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 923 , 812 A.2d 865 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Caminis v. Troy
See Franc v. Bethel Holding Co., 73 Conn. App. 114, 145 , 807 A.2d 519 , cert. granted on other grounds, 262 Conn. 923 , 812 A.2d 864 (2002) (appeal withdrawn October 21, 2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sanseverino
See Franc v. Bethel Holding Co., 73 Conn. App. 114, 150 , 807 A.2d 519 (Schaller, J., dissenting) (disagreeing with majority opinion and noting that parties at least should be allowed to file supplemental briefs), cert. granted, 262 Conn. 923 , 812 A.2d 864 (2002) (appeal withdrawn October 21, 2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Zabaneh v. DAN BEARD ASSOCIATES, LLC.
See Lisiewski v. Seidel, 72 Conn. App. 861, 872 , 806 A.2d 1121 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 921 , 922, 812 A.2d 865 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Singleton
(2×)
See State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, 178 , 807 A.2d 500 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 923 , 812 A.2d 865 (2002); see also State v. Theriault, 38 Conn. App. 815 , 823 n.7, 663 A.2d 423 (“[although we find the defendant’s [jury charge claim] dispositive, we must address the sufficiency of the evidence claim since the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal of the charge if she prevails on this claim”), cert. denied, 235 Conn. 922 , 666 A.2d 1188 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Abney
(2×)
See State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, 201 , 807 A.2d 500 (evidence corroborating defendant’s self-defense claim improperly excluded as cumulative), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 923 , 812 A.2d 865 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bean-Corveira v. Milton D. Friedman, Inc.
Although the plaintiff is correct that absence of permission is not a requirement to proving a prescriptive easement; see Lisiewski v. Seidel, 72 Conn. App. 861, 873 , 806 A.2d 1121 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 921 , 922, 812 A.2d 865 (2002); she misstates the court’s findings.
discussed
Cited "see"
Miller v. Town of Westport
See Franc v. Bethel Holding Co., 73 Conn. App. 114 , 146 n.l, 807A.2d519 (Schaller,J., dissenting), cert. granted on other grounds, 262 Conn. 923 , 812 A.2d 864 (2002) (appeal withdrawn October 21, 2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McColl
(2×)
See State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, 178 , 807 A.2d 500 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 923 , 812 A.2d 865 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Stephenson
(2×)
See State v. Calabrese, 279 Conn. 393, 401 , 902 A.2d 1044 (2006); see also State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, 178 , 807 A.2d 500 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 923 , 812 A.2d 865 (2002); State v. Theriault, 38 Conn. App. 815 , 823 n.7, 663 A.2d 423 ([a]lthough we find the defendant’s [jury charge claim] dispositive, we must address the sufficiency of the evi- dence claim since the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal of the charge if [he] prevails on this claim), cert. denied, 235 Conn. 922 , 666 A.2d 1188 (1995).’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Badaracco, 156 Conn. App…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Peterson v. McAndrew
The description of the property conveyed by the deed is clear and unam- biguous; see Mierzejewski v. Laneri, supra, 130 Conn. App. 311 ; see also Lisiewski v. Seidel, 72 Conn. App. 861, 866 , 806 A.2d 1121 (‘‘[i]n determining the location of a boundary line expressed in a deed, if the description is clear and unambiguous, it governs and the actual intent of the parties is irrelevant’’), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 921 , 922, 812 A.2d 865 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Adams
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, 180 , 807 A.2d 500 (“a claim of insufficiency of the evidence must be tested by reviewing no less than, and no more than, the evidence introduced at trial”), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 923 , 812 A.2d 865 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Eubanks
(2×)
Claims of evidentiary insufficiency in criminal cases are always addressed independently of claims of evidentiary error.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carey, 228 Conn. 487, 495-96 , 636 A.2d 840 (1994); see also State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, 180 , 807 A.2d 500 (“a claim of insufficiency of the evidence must be tested by reviewing no less than, and no more than, the evidence introduced at trial”), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 923 , 812 A.2d 865 (2002); State v. Rodriguez, 39 Conn. App. 579, 592-93 , 665 A.2d 1357 (1995) (reviewing all evidence in address…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Miller v. Fishman
See, e.g., Franc v. Bethel Holding Co., 73 Conn. App. 114, 132, 807 A.2d 519 , cert. granted on other grounds, 262 Conn. 923 , 812 A.2d 864 (2002) (appeal withdrawn October 21, 2003); see also Practice Book § 10-60. 5 The court’s discretion, however, is not unfettered; it is a legal discretion subject to review.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Moore
(2×)
See State v. Calabrese, 279 Conn. 393, 401 , 902 A.2d 1044 (2006); see also State v. Smith, 73 Conn. App. 173, 178 , 807 A.2d 500 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 923 , 812 A.2d 865 (2002); State v. Theriault, 38 Conn. App. 815 , 823 n.7, 663 A.2d 423 (“[although we find the defendant’s [jury charge claim] dispositive, we must address the sufficiency of the evidence claim since the defendant would be entitled to an acquittal of the charge if she prevails on this claim”), cert. denied, 235 Conn. 922 , 666 A.2d 1188 (1995). 3 The audiotape of the trial containing the final arguments of the partie…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
SCOTT SMITH
v.
SCOTT SMITH
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 13, 2002.
John A. Connelly, state’s attorney, in support of the petition., Richard Emanuel and John J. Kelly, in opposition.
Published
No opinion found.Click here to view source material.