green
Positive treatment
8.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Smalls v. Commissioner of Correction
See State v. Smalls , 78 Conn. App. 535 , 548, 827 A.2d 784 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 931 , 837 A.2d 806 (2003). *527 The petitioner filed his first habeas petition in 2004.
discussed
Cited "see"
Pellet v. Keller Williams Realty Corp.
See Malloy v. Colchester , 85 Conn.App. 627 , 632, 858 A.2d 813 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 907 , 863 A.2d 698 (2004), citing Arnone v. Enfield , 79 Conn.App. 501 , 505-506, 831 A.2d 260 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 804 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. VanDeusen
See State v. Smalls, 78 Conn. App. 535, 548 , 827 A.2d 784 (‘‘defendant’s conduct took place in public where children were likely to be pre- sent’’), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 931 , 837 A.2d 806 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Anderson v. Anderson
See Bee v. Bee, 79 Conn. App. 783, 791 , 831 A.2d 833 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 805 (2003), overruled in part on other grounds by Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 , 202 n.6, 61 A.3d 449 (2013). ‘‘The general rule of law known as the American rule is that attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception. . . .
cited
Cited "see"
Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
See Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn. App. 501, 507 , 831 A.2d 260 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 804 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Tuckman v. Tuckman
See Bee v. Bee, 79 Conn. App. 783, 787 , 831 A.2d 833 , cert, denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 805 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Natarajan v. Natarajan
See Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn. App. 501, 529 , 831 A.2d 260 (“because [the witness], a very knowledgeable witness on the issue of standardized reporting procedures, testified in the capacity of a fact witness, the court’s admission of his testimony, despite the plaintiffs failure to disclose him . . . was not improper”), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 804 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sutherland v. Sutherland
See Bee v. Bee, 79 Conn. App. 783, 798-99 , 831 A.2d 833 (construction of judgment is question of law for court and determinative factor is intention of court as gathered from all parts of judgment), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 805 (2003). 2 The magistrate issued his original memorandum of decision on April 29, 2005.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. DeVivo
See Bee v. Bee, 79 Conn. App. 783, 798-99 , 831 A.2d 833 (construction of judgment is question of law for court and determinative factor is intention of court as gathered from all parts of judgment), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 805 (2003). 2 Despite having served his sentence, the defendant’s appeal is not moot because the defendant may be subject to collateral legal consequences as a result of the conviction.
discussed
Cited "see"
DeOliveira v. PMG Land Associates, L.P.
See Bee v. Bee, 79 Conn. App. 783, 798-99 , 831 A.2d 833 (construction of judgment is question of law for court and determinative factor is intention of court as gathered from all parts of judgment), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 805 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Wallenta v. Moscowitz
See Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn. App. 501, 505-506 , 831 A.2d 260 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 804 (2003); Nevers v. Van Zuilen, 47 Conn. App. 46, 51 , 700 A.2d 726 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada
To avoid such a result, the department argues, these claims must be resolved through the causal connection prong of the McDonnell Douglas test; see, e.g., Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn. App. 501, 507 , 831 A.2d 260 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 804 (2003); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra, 411 U.S. 802 ; under which the self-reporting employee must present evidence of retaliatory intent beyond the simple fact that the employer promptly dis- ciplined the employee for the same misconduct the employee reported.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. O'Brien-Veader
See, e.g., State v. Medrano, 308 Conn. 604 , 616–19, 65 A.3d 503 (2013) (prosecutor properly argued defendant was not credible because of evidence that he had larceny conviction and had lied on job application, and had motive to lie); see also State v. Smalls, 78 Conn. App. 535 , 542–43, 827 A.2d 784 (prosecutor may properly comment on defendant’s ‘‘voluntary pretrial statements if the defendant relies on those statements for a defense’’ and comment does not burden defendant’s right not to testify), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 931 , 837 A.2d 806 (2003).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Marshall v. Marshall
Id., 819-20 ; see, e.g., Bee v. Bee, 79 Conn. App. 783, 796-97 , 831 A.2d 833 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 805 (2003).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Koslik
See, e.g., State v. Ortiz, 79 Conn. App. 667, 672-73 , 830 A.2d 802 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 933 , 837 A.2d 806 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
ALAN L. WEISENBERG
v.
ALAN L. WEISENBERG
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 2, 2003.
David B. Rozwaski, special public defender, in support of the petition., Rita M. Shair, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 79 Conn. App. 657 (AC 22590), is denied.