green
Positive treatment
12.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Rodriguez
(2×)
See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Melahn, 222 Conn. App. 828 , 844–45, 307 A.3d 911 (2023), cert. denied, 348 Conn. 951 , 308 A.3d 1038 (2024). 4 ‘‘In Connecticut, strict foreclosure is the rule, foreclosure by sale the exception.’’ National City Mortgage Co. v. Stoecker, 92 Conn. App. 787, 793 , 888 A.2d 95 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 925 , 895 A.2d 799 (2006). ‘‘The decision whether to order a strict foreclosure or a sale lies within the discretion of the court.’’ Id., 794.
discussed
Cited "see"
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Malick
(2×)
See National City Mortgage Co. v. Stoecker, 92 Conn. App. 787, 798 , 888 A.2d 95 (‘‘defendant’s claim seeking to establish the chronology and specific nature of the payments was well articulated and is therefore readily distinguishable from a vague claim of insufficient knowledge’’), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 925 , 895 A.2d 799 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Morales
(2×)
See State v. Crawley, 93 Conn. App. 548, 568 , 889 A.2d 930 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 925 , 895 A.2d 799 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ebron
(2×)
Because the language of ... § 53a-18 (1) does not impose a mandatory duty on the trial court to give such an instruction, we also decline to review the claim under the plain error doctrine.” (Citations omitted.) Id., 83; see State v. Solomon, 103 Conn. App. 530, 532, 535-36 , 930 A.2d 716 (2007) (trial court had no duty to instruct jury sua sponte about self-defense because defendant in assault case arising from domestic dispute failed to request instruction or “present evidence to warrant a jury instruction on the defense”); *695 State v. Williams, 44 Conn. App. 231, 239-40 , 689 A.2d …
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gaymon
See State v. Gaymon, 93 Conn. App. 569 , 889 A.2d 880 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 927 , 895 A.2d 799 (2006). 2 “[A] defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmles…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Purvis
(2×)
In determining whether the charges arise out of the same act or transaction, ‘‘it is not uncommon that we Page 26 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 28 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 State v. Purvis look to the evidence at trial and to the state’s theory of the case . . . in addition to the information against the defendant, as amplified by the bill of particulars.’’16 (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, 328 Conn. 648, 662 , 182 A.3d 625 (2018). ‘‘When determining whether two charges arose from the same act or transaction, our Supreme Court has asked whether a jur…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. v. Malick
(2×)
In Burritt Mutual Savings Bank of New Britain v. Tucker, supra, 183 Conn. 374 , the defendant had raised an objection to the plaintiff’s affidavit of debt, specifi- cally disputing ‘‘the amounts shown thereon for princi- pal, interest, taxes, and late charges.’’ Our Supreme Court explained that once ‘‘a defense concerning the amount of the mortgage debt’’ set forth in the plaintiff’s updated affidavit of debt was raised, ‘‘[t]he rule [Prac- tice Book § 527, now § 23-18] . . . was inapplicable and the general prohibition against hearsay evidence precluded the use of th…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rapoport v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS STAMFORD
General Statutes § 22a-113n (b); see also General Statutes § 22a-361 (c).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) DiPietro v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 93 Conn. App. 314, 320-21 , 889 A.2d 269 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 925 , 895 A.2d 796 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Holloway
(2×)
Rather, it is the responsibility of the parties to help the court in fashioning an appropriate charge.” (Citation omitted; *819 internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Arena, 235 Conn. 67, 75, 663 A.2d 972 (1995); see also State v. Crawley, 93 Conn. App. 548, 568 , 889 A.2d 930 (rejecting defendant’s claim that court sua sponte should have instructed jury on doctrine of nonexclusive possession where defendant failed to request such charge and failed to object to its absence), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 925 , 895 A.2d 799 (2006). 13 Because we conclude that the defendant has not demonstrat…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Boyd
(2×)
Rather, it is the responsibility of the parties to help the court in fashioning an appropriate charge.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Arena, 235 Conn. 67, 75 , 663 A.2d 972 (1995); see also State v. Crawley, 93 Conn. App. 548,568 , 889 A.2d 930 (rejecting defendant’s claim that court sua sponte should have instructed jury on doctrine of nonexclusive possession where defendant failed to request such charge and failed to object to its absence), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 925 , 895 A.2d 799 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
Scott A. Crawley
v.
Scott A. Crawley
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 23, 2006.
Alice Osedach, assistant public defender, in support of the petition., Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Norcott.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 93 Conn. App. 548 (AC 25241), is denied.
NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.