green
Positive treatment
4.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sayles
Thus, we evaluate the claim only under the federal constitution. 19 As a result of our conclusion, we need not address the other ground on which the state relies in support of the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress, namely, the inevitable discovery doctrine. 20 ‘‘A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interfer- ence with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 320 Conn. 22 , 64, 128 A.3d 431 (2015); State v. Jackson, 304 Conn. 383, 394 , 40 A.3d 290 (2012). 21 ‘‘To discourage unre…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sayles
Thus, we evaluate the claim only under the federal constitution. 19 As a result of our conclusion, we need not address the other ground on which the state relies in support of the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress, namely, the inevitable discovery doctrine. 20 ‘‘A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interfer- ence with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 320 Conn. 22 , 64, 128 A.3d 431 (2015); State v. Jackson, 304 Conn. 383, 394 , 40 A.3d 290 (2012). 21 ‘‘To discourage unre…
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas v. State
See State v. Thomas, 98 Conn. App. 542 , 909 A.2d 969 (2006), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 910 , 916 A.2d 53 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Pereira
See State v. Irizarry, supra, 238 (court minimized potential prejudice by repeatedly giving limiting instructions on use of evidence); see also State v. Hall, 98 Conn. App. 673, 681-82 , 911 A.2d 331 (2006) (same), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 908 , 916 A.2d 52 (2007); State v. McFarlane, supra, 88 Conn. App. 166 (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert Smith
v.
Commissioner of Correction
v.
Commissioner of Correction
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 25, 2007.
Anthony E. Parent, special public defender, in support of the petition., James M. Ralls, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Vertefeuille.
Published
The petitioner Robert Smith’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 98 Conn. App. 690 (AC 26622), is denied.
VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.