green
Positive treatment
7.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
F. S. v. J. S.
The defendant did not seek an articulation from Judge Diana regarding his order, and it is axiomatic that this court does not make findings of fact; see Zitnay v. Zitnay, 90 Conn. App. 71, 81 , 875 A.2d 583 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 918 , 888 A.2d 90 (2005); both of which implicate the adequacy of the record before us.
discussed
Cited "see"
Casiraghi v. Casiraghi
Our calculations are not meant to be viewed as factual findings, which we cannot make; see Zitnay v. Zitnay, 90 Conn. App. 71, 81 , 875 A.2d 583 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 918 , 888 A.2d 90 (2005); but merely as reflecting the undisputed evidence that was before the trial court. 18 The court stated that the plaintiff also received ‘‘rental income from his property at 300 Post Road in Westport.’’ This is the only finding by the court of any potential additional income source other than self-employment, but the court does not state the amount of the purported rental income.
discussed
Cited "see"
Washington v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
It is axiomatic that no branch of government organized under a constitution may exercise any power that is not explicitly bestowed by that constitution or that is not essential to the exercise thereof.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McCahill, 261 Conn. 492, 505 , 811 A.2d 667 (2002); accord Whitaker v. Commissioner of Correction, 90 Conn. App. 460, 480 , 878 A.2d 321 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 918 , 888 A.2d 89 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ortiz v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
Once presentence confinement credit has been fully utilized to reduce a sentence, it cannot be applied again to reduce another sentence.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 204 Conn. App. 712, 723 , 254 A.3d 1011 , cert. denied, 338 Conn. 914 , 259 A.3d 1179 (2021); see also, e.g., Whitaker v. Commissioner of Correction, 90 Conn. App. 460 , 475–76, 878 A.2d 321 (concluding that, in light of Harris, respondent improperly applied Ortiz v. Commissioner of Correction presentence confinement credit to later sentence after it had been cred…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Daddio v. O'Bara
“In Emerick v. Emerick, 5 Conn. App. 649, 656-57 , 502 A.2d 933 (1985), cert. dismissed, 200 Conn. 804 , 510 A.2d 192 (1986), we . . . explained that [t]he difference between a sole custodian and a joint legal custodian is that the sole custodian has the ultimate authority to make all decisions regarding a child’s welfare, such as education, religious instruction and medical care whereas a joint legal custodian shares the responsibility for those decisions.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sweeney v. Sweeney, 75 Conn. App. 279, 285-86 , 815 A.2d 287 (2003), rev’d on other grounds, …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Darryl WHITAKER
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 9, 2005.
Published
Temmy Ann Pieszak, chief of habeas corpus services, in support of the petition.
The petitioner Darryl Whitaker's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 90 Conn.App. 460, 878 A.2d 321 (2005), is denied.