green
Positive treatment
5.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Salters v. Commissioner of Correction
Our appellate courts consistently have held that the risk of juror confusion from an improper intent instruction has been "eliminated by the trial court's numerous proper instructions on the elements of [the charged offense]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 475 , 797 A.2d 1101 ; see also, e.g., State v. Montanez , 277 Conn. 735 , 745-47, 894 A.2d 928 (2006) (holding no reasonable possibility jury misled by general instruction or reference to principle of general intent eleven times because trial court repeatedly gave clear instructions on specific intent required for manslaughter)…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Orr
See State v. Miller, 83 Conn. App. 789 , 802–803, 851 A.2d 367 (in holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked defendant’s probation, reviewing court noted that trial court ‘‘had before it the defendant’s long criminal history’’ and evidence of ‘‘his cavalier attitude about his probation’’), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 911 , 859 A.2d 573 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. White
(2×)
See State v. McKieman, 84 Conn. App. 31, 36-37 , 851 A.2d 1198 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 915 , 859 A.2d 573 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Anthony A.
See In re Shanaira C., 105 Conn. App. 713, 717-19 , 940 A.2d 817 (intervening former girlfriend of minor child’s father had standing on appeal to challenge revocation and commitment of minor child where trial court’s ruling revoking commitment was adverse to intervenor’s interest in disposition of neglect petition), cert. granted on other grounds, 286 Conn. 917 , 945 A.2d 977 (2008). “[I]n determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lowe v. Shelton, 83 Conn. App. 750, 754…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Darrow
See State v. Sivak, 84 Conn. App. 105, 111 , 852 A.2d 812 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 916 , 859 A.2d 573 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
Cox v. Burdick
See Lowe v. Shelton, 83 Conn. App. 750, 765 , 851 A.2d 1183 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 915 , 859 A.2d 568 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
Morris v. Cee Dee, LLC
See State v. Miller, 83 Conn. App. 789, 796-97 , 851 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 911 , 859 A.2d 573 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cator v. Commissioner of Correction
See also State v. Sivak , 84 Conn. App. 105 , 112-13, 852 A.2d 812 (reasonably possible jury was misled by improper intent instruction that included full statutory definition of "intentionally" and focused on intended conduct rather than intended result of causing serious physical harm), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 916 , 859 A.2d 573 (2004) ; State v. Lopes , 78 Conn. App. 264 , 270-72, 826 A.2d 1238 (reasonably possible jury was misled where "improper instruction was given in regard to the definition of murder and not solely in the instruction dealing with the general definition of intent," and t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Nance
The tendency of an irrelevant instruction to mislead the jury instead must be considered in the context of the whole charge.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Montanez, 277 Conn. 735, 746 , 894 A.2d 928 (2006); see also State v. Sivak, 84 Conn. App. 105, 112 , 852 A.2d 812 (noting that in such cases “appellate review should consist of more than a numerical count of how many times the instruction was correct rather than incorrect”), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 916 , 859 A.2d 573 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lydall, Inc. v. Ruschmeyer
See, e.g., Lowe v. Shelton, 83 Conn. App. 750, 765 , 851 A.2d 1183 (“[i]t is the trier’s exclusive province to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses and determine whether to accept some, all or none of a witness’ testimony” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert, denied, 271 Conn. 915 , 859 A.2d 568 (2004). 21 In its memorandum of decision, the trial court stated that, for purposes of the injunction, “trade secrets constitute the strategic plan as a whole . . . and those parts of the plan not yet disclosed to the public.” After this appeal was fi…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Liam McKIERNAN.
v.
Liam McKIERNAN.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 15, 2004.
Published
Richard W. Callahan, special public defender, in support of the petition.
Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 84 Conn.App. 31, 851 A.2d 1198 (2004), is denied.