green
Positive treatment
10.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Bardales
See State v. Marcisz, 99 Conn. App. 31, 36 , 913 A.2d 436 (‘‘[i]t is the [finder of fact’s] exclusive province to weigh the conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 922 , 918 A.2d 273 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Bereis
See State v. Marcisz, 99 Conn. App. 31, 36 , 913 A.2d 436 (fact finder had right to reject defendant’s testimony that other individual was driving motor vehicle), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 922 , 918 A.2d 273 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
Romero v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See State v. Cosby, 99 *312 Conn. App. 164, 172, 913 A.2d 1068 (Troupe inapplicable to testimony not regarding details of alleged assault), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 920 , 918 A.2d 273 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
Giannamore v. Shevchuk
(2×)
See State v. Olenick, 98 Conn. App. 638 , 640 n.1, 910 A.2d 1002 (2006), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 920 , 918 A.2d 273 (2007). 2 The initial complaint alleged abuse of process, malicious prosecution, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Petaway
(2×)
See State v. Olenick, 98 Conn. App. 638, 642 , *742 910 A.2d 1002 (2006), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 920 , 918 A.2d 273 (2007). “[T]o the extent that the trial court has made findings of fact, our review is limited to deciding whether such findings were clearly erroneous. ...
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Russo
General Statutes § 54-2a.’’ State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443, 449 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987). 8 The record is inconsistent as to whether this meeting occurred in May or June of 2019. 9 ‘‘An arrest warrant requires a finding of probable cause that an offense was committed and that the defendant committed the offense.’’ State v. Smith, 344 Conn. 229, 256 , 278 A.3d 481 (2022); see also State v. Brown, 98 Conn. App. 829, 833 , 912 A.2d 525 (2006) (discussing probable cause), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 920 , 918 A.2d 272 (2007). 10 Practice Book § 41-8 provides in relevant part: ‘‘The f…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Holley
The significance of this distinction has been recognized in prior decisions; see, e.g., State v. Felder, 99 Conn. App. 18 , 25 n.6, 912 A.2d 1054 , cert. denied, 281 Conn. 921 , 918 A.2d 273 (2007), and distinguishes the testimony in the present case from the police testimony at issue in State v. Finan, supra, 275 Conn. 62–71, on which the defendant relies.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Dorlette
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Cosby, 99 Conn. App. 164, 171 , 913 A.2d 1068 (“[assigning error to a court’s evidentiary rulings on the basis of objections never raised at trial unfairly subjects the court and the opposing party to trial by ambush” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 920 , 918 A.2d 273 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ricketts
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Cosby, 99 Conn. App. 164, 171 , 913 A.2d 1068 (“[assigning error to a court’s evi-dentiary rulings on the basis of objections never raised at trial unfairly subjects the court and the opposing party to trial by ambush” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 920 , 918 A.2d 273 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rodriguez
See State v. Vega, supra, 128 Conn. App. 27 -28; see also State v. Felder, 99 Conn. App. 18, 24 , 912 A.2d 1054 *728 (“[t]he question of [the] identity of a perpetrator of a crime is a question of fact that is within the sole province of the jury to resolve” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 921 , 918 A.2d 273 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wiegand v. Wiegand
(2×)
“The court shall not be bound to consider a claim unless it was distinctly raised at the trial . . . .” Practice Book § 60-5; see also State v. Marcisz, 99 Conn. App. 31, 38 , 913 A.2d 436 (no review of unpreserved claim), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 922 , 918 A.2d 273 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moraski v. Connecticut Board of Examiners of Embalmers & Funeral Directors
See State v. Teel, 42 Conn. App. 500, 506-507 , 681 A.2d 974 (concluding that defendant’s failure to comply with rules of practice requirement of written motion for recusal with affidavit setting forth facts supporting bias claim deprived court of adequate record for review as required under first prong of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 [1989]), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996); see also State v. Marcisz, 99 Conn. App. 31, 38-39 , 913 A.2d 436 (concluding that defendant’s unpreserved claim of judicial bias was not of constitutional magnitude and th…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Blango
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Cosby, 99 Conn. App. 164, 171 , 913 A.2d 1068 (“[assigning error to a court’s evidentiary rulings on the basis of objections never raised at trial unfairly subjects the court and the opposing party to trial by ambush” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 920 , 918 A.2d 273 (2007).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Michael OLENICK III.
v.
Michael OLENICK III.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 28, 2007.
Published
Donald R. Beebe, Norwich, and Sarah J. Schlechtweg, in support of the petition.
[*274] Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 98 Conn.App. 638, 910 A.2d 1002 (2006), is denied.