green
Positive treatment
6.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction
See Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 76 Conn.App. 901 , 819 A.2d 940 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 904 , 823 A.2d 1221 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Marciano v. Kraner
(2×)
As the court correctly explained, “[a] plaintiff cannot obviate the necessity for expert testimony by couching his claim in terms of contract rather than tort”; see Celentano v. Grudberg, 76 Conn. App. 119, 125 , 818 A.2d 841 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 904 , 823 A.2d 1220 (2003); or, “[b]y the same token . . . referring to the attorney’s conduct as a breach of fiduciary duty.” Because the plaintiff failed to introduce any expert testimony as to the preliminary issue of the attorney-client relationship, we cannot say, on the basis of the facts in the present case, that the court improp…
cited
Cited "see"
Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction
See State v. Fernandez, 76 Conn. App. 183 , 818 A.2d 877 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 901 , 823 A.2d 1220 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 264 Conn. 904 .
cited
Cited "see"
Fernandez v. Alexander
See State v. Fernandez, 76 Conn.App. 183, 184-85 , 818 A.2d 877, 879 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 901 , 823 A.2d 1220 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mitchell v. State
See Roberto v. Honeywell, Inc., 33 Conn. App. 619 , 625–26, 637 A.2d 405 , cert. denied, 229 Conn. 909 , 642 A.2d 1205 (1994); Segretario v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 9 Conn. App. 355, 362 , 519 A.2d 76 (1986); see also Alvarado v. Commissioner of Correction, 75 Conn. App. 894 , 895–96, 818 A.2d 797 (rejecting argument that trial court had affirmative duty, sua sponte, to inquire into reasons for untimely petition for certification to appeal), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 903 , 823 A.2d 1220 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ackerly and Brown, LLP v. Smithies
(2×)
Our courts have carved out a limited exception to this general rule in cases in which “there is present such an obvious and gross want of care and skill that the neglect [to meet the standard of care] is clear even to a layperson.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Anderson v. Schoenhorn, 89 Conn. App. 666, 671 , 874 A.2d 798 (2005); see also Celentano v. Grudberg, 76 Conn. App. 119, 126 , 818 A.2d 841 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 904 , 823 A.2d 1220 (2003); Pearl v. Nelson, 13 Conn. App. 170, 173 , 534 A.2d 1257 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Myers
(2×)
See State v. Cooper, 227 Conn. 417, 427 , 630 A.2d 1043 (1993) (where evidence similar to uncharged misconduct permeated trial, court found it difficult to believe uncharged misconduct evidence "could have had a tendency to shock or influence the jury or to color the proceedings so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial"); see also State v. Fernandez, 76 Conn.App. 183, 189-90 , 818 A.2d 877 (evidence that defendant sold drugs several times in past not type of evidence that would improperly arouse emotions of jury), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 901 , 823 A.2d 1220 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JOSEPH E. CELENTANO
v.
IRA B. GRUDBERG
v.
IRA B. GRUDBERG
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
May 28, 2003.
John R. Williams, in support of the petition., Ira B. Grudberg, Trisha Morris Porto and David A. Leff in opposition.
Published
No opinion found.Click here to view source material.