State v. ROY D., 907 A.2d 94 (Conn. 2006). · Go Syfert
State v. ROY D., 907 A.2d 94 (Conn. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events (53 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin (connappct, 2024-10-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin
Conn. App. Ct. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Housing Authority v. Martin, 95 Conn. App. 802, 808 , 898 A.2d 245 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904 , 907 A.2d 90 (2006). ‘‘There is no doubt that the Superior Court is author- ized to hear summary process cases; the Superior Court is authorized to hear all cases except those over which the probate courts have original jurisdiction.
discussed Cited "see" Presidential Village, LLC v. Perkins
Conn. App. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See *501 Housing Authority v. Martin , 95 Conn.App. 802 , 808, 898 A.2d 245 ("[u]nder federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1437d ( l )... a landlord is required to issue a pretermination notice before commencing a summary process action"), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904 , 907 A.2d 90 (2006).
cited Cited "see" McKeon v. Lennon
Conn. App. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Ortiz, 95 Conn. App. 69, 81 , 895 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 94 (2006).
cited Cited "see" McKeon v. Lennon
Conn. App. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Ortiz, 95 Conn. App. 69, 81 , 895 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 94 (2006).
discussed Cited "see" Haywood v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Servello v. Commissioner of Correction, 95 Conn. App. 753, 761 , 899 A.2d 636 (‘‘the decision of a trial lawyer not to make an objection is a matter of trial tactics, not evidence of incompetency’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904 , 907 A.2d 91 (2006).
discussed Cited "see" Jeudy v. Jeudy
Conn. App. Ct. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
Because it is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to resolve credibility determinations; see State v. Ortiz, 95 Conn. App. 69, 81 , 895 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 94 (2006); and there is evidence in the record supporting the claim that the defendant’s abode at the time of service was 404 Fairview Avenue, the court did not improperly find that service was adequate.
discussed Cited "see" Roy Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Housing Authority v. Martin, 95 Conn. App. 802, 808 , 898 A.2d 245 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904 , 907 A.2d 90 (2006); LoRicco Towers Condominium Assn. v. Pantani, 90 Conn. App. 43, 47 , 876 A.2d 1211 (determination of subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved before addressing other issues), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 925 , 888 A.2d 93 (2005).
discussed Cited "see" State v. BRUCE T. (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Roy D., 95 Conn. App. 686, 694 , 897 A.2d 733 (“§ 53a-32a provides a mechanism for the automatic revocation of *584 probation in [certain] cases”), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904 , 907 A.2d 94 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Leniart
Conn. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ed. 2d 369 (2010); People v. Vega, Docket No. G045613, 2013 WL 1736669 , *8 (Cal. App. April 23, 2013) (Natapoff’s testimony was properly excluded), review denied, Cali- fornia Supreme Court, Docket No. S210465 (June 26, 2013); State v. Woods, supra, 2014 WL 4437733 , *7 (trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony when informant was cross-examined at length); see also Servello v. Commissioner of Correc- tion, 95 Conn. App. 753, 763 , 899 A.2d 636 (upholding habeas court’s conclusion that expert testimony would not have assisted jury), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Leniart
Conn. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ed. 2d 369 (2010); People v. Vega, Docket No. G045613, 2013 WL 1736669 , *8 (Cal. App. April 23, 2013) (Natapoff’s testimony was properly excluded), review denied, Cali- fornia Supreme Court, Docket No. S210465 (June 26, 2013); State v. Woods, supra, 2014 WL 4437733 , *7 (trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony when informant was cross-examined at length); see also Servello v. Commissioner of Correc- tion, 95 Conn. App. 753, 763 , 899 A.2d 636 (upholding habeas court’s conclusion that expert testimony would not have assisted jury), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marquez v. Commissioner of Correction (2×)
Conn. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Servello v. Commissioner of Correction, 95 Conn. App. 753, 763 , 899 A.2d 636 (petitioner claimed that his defense counsel should have called expert wit- ness at trial to testify whether informant ‘‘expected to receive, or already had received, consideration in exchange for his cooperation’’), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904 , 907 A.2d 91 (2006); see also United States v. Noze, 255 F. Supp. 3d 352, 353 (D.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. DeMarco
Conn. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
The three general categories that the courts have identi- fied as justifying the application of the doctrine are danger to human life, destruction of evidence and flight of a suspect.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Aviles, supra, 294 . ‘‘Moreover, this court previously held that ‘we do not read [prior case law] to require direct evidence of an emergency situation . . . .’ State v. Colon, supra, 272 Conn. 147 ; see also State v. Ortiz, [ 95 Conn. App. 69, 83 , 895 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 94 (2006)] (‘[t]he fact that a per…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Brabham
Conn. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Sewell, 95 Conn. App. 815, 823 , 898 A.2d 828 (defendant bears burden of showing prejudice caused by state’s failure *386 to disclose materials), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 905 , 907 A.2d 94 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Owen
Conn. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Ortiz, 95 Conn. App. 69 , 77 n.2, 895 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 903 , 907 A.2d 94 (2006). 3 With regard to the court’s reliance on the doctrine of consent, the defendant claims that the court’s factual finding that Smith had agreed to the police entering and searching her residence was not supported by the evidence.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
ROY D.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 13, 2006.
907 A.2d 94
Published

Michael Zariphes, special public defender, in support of the petition.

Michele C. Lukban, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 95 Conn.App. 686, 897 A.2d 733 (2006), is denied.