green
Positive treatment
7.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In re A'vion A.
See, e.g., General Statutes § 17a-15 (b) (requiring petitioner to review permanency plan for each child under her care ‘‘at least every six months’’); General Statutes § 17a-110a (a) (‘‘[i]n order to achieve early perma- nency for children, decrease children’s length of stay in foster care, reduce the number of moves children experience in foster care and reduce the amount of time between termination of parental rights and adoption, the [petitioner] shall establish a program for concurrent permanency planning’’); General Statutes § 17a-111a (a) (1) (requiring petitioner to…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. ORAL H.
(2×)
See State v. Perez, 82 Conn. App. 100, 110 , 842 A.2d 1187 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 904 , 852 A.2d 734 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Justice V.
See In re Darien S., 82 Conn. App. 169 , 185 n.17, 842 A.2d 1177 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 904 , 852 A.2d 733 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sulser
(2×)
See State v. *869 Moore, 82 Conn. App. 267, 272 , 843 A.2d 652 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 904 , 852 A.2d 734 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Perez
(2×)
See State v. Perez, 80 Conn. App. 354, 364 , 835 A.2d 84 (2003), superseded, 82 Conn. App. 100 , 842 A.2d 1187 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 904 , 852 A.2d 734 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Zowie N.
See, e.g., In re Darien S., 82 Conn. App. 169, 175-76 , 842 A.2d 1177 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 904 , 852 A.2d 733 (2004). 12 April 16, 2010, was the original trial date. 13 The respondent does not contest the court’s finding that termination of the respondent’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. 14 The respondent also claims that the trial court improperly found that he had abandoned the child and that there was no ongoing parent-child relationship.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. LaSalle
(2×)
As our Supreme Court has reasoned, “[o]ne who uses a deadly weapon upon a vital part of another will be deemed to have intended the probable result of that act, and from such a circumstance a proper inference may be drawn in some cases that there was an intent to kill.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Tomasko, 238 Conn. 253, 259 , 681 A.2d 922 (1996); see also State v. Moore, 82 Conn. App. 267, 272 , 843 A.2d 652 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 904 , 852 A.2d 734 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Scott
(2×)
This court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the [fact finder] if there is sufficient evidence to support the [decision].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Elsey, 81 Conn. App. 738, 743-44 , 841 A.2d 714 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 901 , 852 A.2d 733 (2004); see also State v. Moore, 82 Conn. App. 267, 270 , 843 A.2d 652 (applying standard to court trial), cert. denied, 269 Conn. 904 , 852 A.2d 734 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
DANIEL PEREZ
v.
DANIEL PEREZ
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
May 12, 2004.
Francis T. Mandanici, senior assistant 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, 82 Conn. App. 100 (AC 23457), is denied.