green
Positive treatment
Trending · 74 recent citers
10.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "see"
U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Booker
(3×)
See Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619 , 634–35, 882 A.2d 98 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924 , 888 A.2d 92 (2005), and cert. denied, 276 Conn. 925 , 888 A.2d 92 (2005). 5 The court also determined that the debt owed by the defendants was $641,635.30 and the fair market value of the property was $258,000. 6 As we stated previously in this opinion, the alleged discrepancy, dis- cussed in footnote 4 of this opinion, led to the denial of the plaintiff’s May 9, 2018 motion for summary judgment. 7 We note that the record does not contain the transcript of the April 14, 2022 hearing.
discussed
Cited "see"
Nodoushani v. Southern Connecticut State University
(2×)
See Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619 , 636–37, 882 A.2d 98 (unnecessary for appellate court to review all claims brought on appeal where one claim is dispositive), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924 , 925, 888 A.2d 92 (2005). 6 ‘‘A defamatory statement is defined as a communication that tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him . . . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Bowden v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619 , 628 n.8, 882 A.2d 98 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924 , 925, 888 A.2d 92 (2005). “[W]e are mindful that [t]he lack of [a] final judgment. . . implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of this court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Matey v. Estate of Dember, 85 Conn. App. 198, 203 , 856 A.2d 511 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fileccia v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance
(2×)
Regardless of whether that judgment is to be satisfied, it indicates that the plaintiff is the prevailing party for purposes of costs; see Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619, 630-31 , 882 A.2d 98 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924 , 925, 888 A.2d 92 (2005); although he in fact did not succeed in proving his claim for underinsured motorists benefits.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Morales v. Meehan
(3×)
Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly. . . . [When] a claim is asserted in the statement of issues but thereafter receives only cursory attention in the brief without substantive discussion or citation of authorities, it is deemed to be abandoned.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cohen v. Rossi, 346 Conn. 642, 689 , 295 A.3d 75 (2023); see also Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619, 635 , 882 A.2d 98 (parties must analyze relationship between facts of case and applicable law), cert. denied, …
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
AGW Sono Partners, LLC v. Downtown Soho, LLC
(3×)
See, e.g., Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619, 638 , 882 A.2d 98 (‘‘unjust enrichment and breach of contract are mutually exclusive theories of recovery’’), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924 , 888 A.2d 92 , and cert. denied, 276 Conn. 925 , 888 A.2d 92 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hylton v. Gunter
(2×)
See, e.g., Rus- sell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619 , 882 A.2d 98 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924 , 925, 888 A.2d 92 (2005) (‘‘unjust enrichment and breach of contract are mutually exclu- sive theories of recovery’’); see also Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390, 401 , 766 A.2d 416 (2001) (‘‘lack of a remedy under the contract is a precondition for recov- ery based upon unjust enrichment’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Samuel v. Hartford
(2×)
Apart from the inadequacy of that bald assertion; see, e.g., Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619 , 634–35, 882 A.2d 98 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924 , 925, 888 A.2d 92 (2005); the record reveals that the plaintiff did not raise any objection before the trial court, as required by Practice Book §§ 5-2 and 60-5, rendering that contention unpre- served.3 The plaintiff also argues that the statute of limitations was equitably tolled by the federal prison mailbox rule.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Peterson v. Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Co.
(2×)
Apart from the inadequacy of that bald assertion; see, e.g., Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619 , 634r-35, 882 A.2d 98 , cert, denied, 276 Conn. 924 , 925, 888 A.2d 92 (2005); the record reveals that the plaintiff did not raise this objection before the trial court, as required by Practice Book §§ 5-2 and 60-5, rendering that evidentiary claim unpreserved.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
300 State, LLC v. Hanafin
(2×)
Partnership, 108 Conn. App. 222, 229 , 947 A.2d 989 (2008); see also Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619, 638 , 882 A.2d 98 (unjust enrichment and breach of contract are mutually exclusive theories of recovery), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924 , 925, 888 A.2d 92 (2005); cf. Parnoff v. Mooney, 132 Conn. App. 512, 519 , 35 A.3d 283 (2011) (claim of quantum meruit described as implied in law contract).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Martin
While mere presence is not enough to support an inference of dominion or control, where there are other pieces of evidence tying the defendant to dominion and control, the [finder of fact is] entitled to consider the fact of [the defendant’s] presence and to draw inferences from that presence and the other circumstances linking [the defendant] to the crime.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, supra, 94 Conn. App. 193 -94; see also State v. Fagan, 92 Conn. App. 44, 49-50 , 883 A.2d 8 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924 , 888 A.2d 91 (2005); State v. Fermaint, 91 Conn. App. 650, 6…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Simms v. Chaisson
(2×)
This concession was appropriate because we previously have defined a prevailing party as “[a] party in whose favor a judgment is rendered, regardless of the amount of damages awarded . . . .” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wallerstein v. Stew Leonard’s Dairy, 258 Conn. 299, 303 , 780 A.2d 916 (2001), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Ed. 1999); see also Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619, 631 , 882 A.2d 98 (if party “obtains judgment on even a fraction of the claims advanced, or is awarded only nominal damages, the party may nevertheless be regarded as the �…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rudder v. MAMANASCO LAKE PARK ASS'N, INC.
See also Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619 , 628 n.8, 882 A.2d 98 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924 , 925, 888 A.2d 91 (2005). 10 In response to still further motions filed by the parties, the court clarified that the fence need not be completely dismantled, but rather returned to the lesser “status which existed prior to the complete ‘barricade.’ ” 11 The plaintiffs also appear to argue, alternatively, that their own complaint raised this issue. 12 Because “the interpretation of a deed is a matter of law subject to plenary review”; Palmieri v. Girino, 90 Conn. App. 841 , 846 n.7, …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charlotte RUSSELL et al.
v.
Howard RUSSELL, Sr. Leigh R. Schultz, Executrix (Estate of G. Alton Russell), et al. v. Russell Linen Service, Inc., et al.
v.
Howard RUSSELL, Sr. Leigh R. Schultz, Executrix (Estate of G. Alton Russell), et al. v. Russell Linen Service, Inc., et al.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 29, 2005.
Published
John-Henry M. Steele, Middlefield, in support of the petition.
Richard L. Albrecht, Barbara M. Schellenberg and Courtney A. George, Bridgeport, in opposition.
The defendants' petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 91 Conn.App. 619, 882 A.2d 98 (2005), is denied.