green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.4 score
“ur courts have concluded . . . that the provisions of the are not exclusive, and a judgment creditor still may seek recognition of a foreign judgment by way of a common-law action on the judgment”
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cahaly v. Benistar Property Exchange Trust Co.
ur courts have concluded . . . that the provisions of the are not exclusive, and a judgment creditor still may seek recognition of a foreign judgment by way of a common-law action on the judgment
discussed
Cited "see"
Martin v. Olson
See Tisdale v. Riverside Cemetery Assn., 78 Conn. App. 250, 263 , 826 A.2d 232 (law is clear that reviewing court will not speculate about jury’s intentions), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 909 , 832 A.2d 74 (2003). 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 15 Martin v. Olson that the error was harmful. . . .
cited
Cited "see"
Moasser v. Becker
See Moasser v. Becker, 78 Conn. App. 305 , 828 A.2d 116 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 910 , 832 A.2d 70 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Cyr
See Tisdale v. Riverside Cemetery Assn., 78 Conn. App. 250 , 254 n.5, 826 A.2d 232 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 909 , 832 A.2d 74 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. James
See Tisdale v. Riverside Cemetery Assn., 78 Conn. App. 250 , 254 n.5, 826 A.2d 232 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 909 , 832 A.2d 74 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
McCord v. Fredette
See Tisdale v. Riverside Cemetery Assn., 78 Conn. App. 250 , 254 n.5, 826 A.2d 232 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 909 , 832 A.2d 74 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. Gilmore
See Tisdale v. Riverside Cemetery Assn., 78 Conn. App. 250 , 254 n.5, 826 A.2d 232 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 909 , 832 A.2d 74 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rendahl v. Peluso
A trial court may decline to accept a verdict and return the jury to continue its deliberations when the verdict form or accompanying interrogatories, if any: are legally inconsistent; e.g., Bilodeau v. Bristol , 38 Conn.App. 447 , 455, 661 A.2d 1049 ("[w]here answers to interrogatories are inconsistent, the trial court has the duty to attempt to harmonize the answers"), cert. denied, 235 Conn. 906 , 665 A.2d 899 (1995) ; contain incomplete findings as to the essential elements of a cause of action or fail to completely dispose of an essential issue; e.g., Tisdale v. Riverside Cemetery Assn. ,…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
JEFFREY M. SKELLY
v.
JEFFREY M. SKELLY
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 18, 2003.
Donald D. Dakers, special public defender, in support of the petition., Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Connecticut (1)
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 78 Conn. App. 513 (AC 22821), is denied.