Premier Capital, Inc. v. Grossman, 859 A.2d 564 (Conn. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Premier Capital, Inc. v. Grossman, 859 A.2d 564 (Conn. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Perez v. Dilworth (ctd, 2021-02-23)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Perez v. Dilworth
D. Conn. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Perez, 271 Conn. 901 , 859 A.2d 565 (2004). 1 The first three grounds were included in a brief filed by an attorney who had been appointed to represent Perez on appeal and the remaining five grounds were asserted by Perez in a supplemental pro se brief.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Culver
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
Moreover, the defendant’s argument is unavailing because it is well established that “[s]ince the legislature has shown that it knows how to bar multiple punishments expressly when it does not intend such punishment . . . the absence of similar language in those statutes provides evidence that the legislature intended cumulative punishments.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 323; see also State v. Perez, 78 Conn. App. 610, 642 , 828 A.2d 626 (2003) (noting several statutes in which legislature expressly prohibited multiple punishments for same incident), cert. d…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PREMIER CAPITAL, INC.
v.
David S. GROSSMAN et al.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 8, 2004.
859 A.2d 564
Published

David S. Grossman, Brookfield, in support of the petition.

Neal L. Moskow, Fairfield, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 82 Conn.App. 390, 845 A.2d 442 (2004), is denied.