green
Positive treatment
10.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Dayton
See Magowan v. Magowan , 73 Conn.App. 733 , 739, 812 A.2d 30 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934 , 815 A.2d 134 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Oreoluwa O.
See In re Vincent B., 73 Conn. App. 637 , 646–47, 809 A.2d 1119 (2002) (concerns regarding father’s perceived plans after reunification did not relieve department from making reasonable efforts to achieve reunifica- tion), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934 , 815 A.2d 136 (2003).10 In the present case the trial court’s finding that the department made reasonable efforts was based on the following facts: (1) the department maintained commu- nication with the respondent; (2) the department con- tacted the resource named by the respondent who resided in the United States; and (3) the department at…
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Oreoluwa O.
See In re Vincent B., 73 Conn.App. 637 , 646-47, 809 A.2d 1119 (2002) (concerns regarding father's perceived plans after reunification did not relieve department from making reasonable efforts to achieve reunification), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934 , 815 A.2d 136 (2003). 10 In the present case the trial court's finding that the department made reasonable efforts was based on the following facts: (1) the department maintained communication with the respondent; (2) the department contacted the resource named by the respondent who resided in the United States; and (3) the department attempted unsu…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Kendall
(2×)
See State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 545, 563-67 , 805 A.2d 787 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Jorden R.
See In re Jorden R., supra, 28. 18 The Appellate Court relied heavily on In re Vincent B., 73 Conn. App. 637, 644 , 809 A.2d 1119 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934 , 815 A.2d 136 (2003), in deciding that the department had a continuing duty to provide the respondent with reunification services.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Sarah S.
See In re Vincent B., 73 Conn. App. 637, 640-41 , 809 A.2d 1119 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934 , 815 A.2d 136 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Jorden R.
See In re Vincent B., 73 Conn. App. 637, 640-41 , 809 A.2d 1119 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934 , 815 A.2d 136 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. MARTIN V.
See State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 112-14 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). 11 After Déla Cruz testified, the court instructed the jury: “This testimony that you have heard with respect to out-of-court statements by the two girls, [M] and [S], is admitted before you not to prove the truth of the contents of their statements, of their out-of-court statements, but to corroborate the fact that at a certain period of time, they made a complaint.
discussed
Cited "see"
Terry v. Terry
See Magowan v. Magowan, 73 Conn. App. 733, 742 , 812 A.2d 30 (2002) (trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to open judgment due to postjudgment change in circumstances), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934 , 815 A.2d 134 (2003); Pascarelli v. Monliterno Stone Sales, 44 Conn. App. 397 , 401 n.7, 689 A.2d 1132 (claim to open voluntary agreement based on mutual mistake must fail because preemption of the statute governing agreement occurred after parties had entered into agreement), cert. denied, 240 Conn. 926 , 692 A.2d 1282 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jackson
Whether testimony was admitted properly under the constancy of accusation doctrine is an evidentiary question. “[E]videntiary rulings will be overturned on appeal only where there was an abuse of discretion and a showing by the defendant of substantial prejudice or injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alvarez, 216 Conn. 301, 306 , 579 A.2d 515 (1990); see State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 117 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Coleman
See State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 545, 563 , 805 A.2d 787 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Travis R.
(2×)
See In re Salvatore P., 74 Conn. App. 23, 28 , 812 A.2d 70 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934 , 815 A.2d 135 , cert. denied sub nom.
cited
Cited "see"
Rosato v. Rosato
See General Statutes § 46b-86 (a) . . . .” (Citation omitted.) Magowan v. Magowan, 73 Conn. App. 733, 742 , 812 A.2d 30 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934 , 815 A.2d 134 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sullivan
See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 308 Conn. 412 , 450, 454, 64 A.3d 91 (2013) (noting that one Williams factor was ‘‘ultimately dispositive of the issue of harmfulness’’); see also, e.g., State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 545, 563 , 805 A.2d 787 (2002) (recognizing that Williams ‘‘factors are nonex- haustive, and do not serve as an arithmetic test for the level of prejudice flowing from [the prosecutorial improprieties]’’), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Laffin v. Laffin
See, e.g., Gaary v. Gillis, 162 Conn. App. 251 , 252 n.1, 131 A.3d 765 (2016) (noting distinction between motion to modify alimony and motion to open judgment based on fraud); see also Magowan v. Magowan, 73 Conn. App. 733, 737 , 812 A.2d 30 (2002) (‘‘if the [dissolution] judgment conforms to the stipulation it cannot be altered or set aside without the consent of all the parties, unless it is shown that the stipulation was obtained by fraud, accident or mistake’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934 , 815 A.2d 134 (2003); Pospisil v. Pospisil, 59 Conn. App.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Roy D. L.
See State v. Wilson, 308 Conn. 412 , 450, 64 A.3d 91 (2013) (noting that one Williams factor was ‘‘ultimately dispos- itive of the issue of harmfulness’’); see also State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 545, 563 , 805 A.2d 787 (2002) (recognizing that Williams factors ‘‘are nonexhaustive, and do not serve as an arithmetic test for the level of prejudice flowing from misconduct’’), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Tremaine C.
(2×)
Compare In re Vincent B., 73 Conn.App. 637, 645 , 809 A.2d 1119 ("respondent's positive step in participating in a treatment program demonstrated a degree of rehabilitation in itself"), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934 , 815 A.2d 136 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Anthony H.
See id., 240; see also In re Migdalia M., 6 Conn. App. 194, 202-203 , 504 A.2d 533 (rehabilitation with regard to parents of limited intellectual ability and medically frail child), cert. denied, 199 Conn. 809 , 508 A.2d 770 (1986). *763 The respondent also relies on language from In re Vincent B., 73 Conn. App. 637, 645 , 809 A.2d 1119 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 934 , 815 A.2d 136 (2003).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sinvil
Compare State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 545, 564-67 , 805 A.2d 787 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
IN RE SALVATORE P.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 9, 2003.
Albert J. Oneto III, in support of the petition., Maureen D. Regula, assistant attorney general, in opposition.
Published
No opinion found.Click here to view source material.