green
Positive treatment
11.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brown
See State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298 , 327 and n.30, 922 A.2d 191 [cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 934 ] (2007).’’ And (2) ‘‘[i]f the defendant’s claim is more properly characterized as a claim of instructional error, was the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the definitions set forth in § 53a-118 (a) (2) and (4) (A) error and, if so, was the error harmful?
discussed
Cited "see"
L. H.-S. v. N. B.
See State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298 , 319–20, 922 A.2d 191 (in assessing fear element under General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 53a-181e, court considered entirety of victim’s testimony and was not limited to particular time frame), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 934 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
L. H.-S. v. N. B.
See State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298 , 319–20, 922 A.2d 191 (in assessing fear element under General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 53a-181e, court considered entirety of victim’s testimony and was not limited to particular time frame), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 934 (2007).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Gemmell
See State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298, 316 , 922 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 934 (2007).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lindsay
See State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298, 316 , 922 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 934 (2007).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Abreu
See State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298, 316 , 922 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 934 (2007).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Gene C.
See State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298, 316 , 922 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 934 (2007).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Samms
See State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298, 316-17 , 922 A.2d 191 (victim’s testimony that she saw defendant evinced visual proximity), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 934 (2007).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. ERNESTO P.
See State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298, 316 , 922 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 934 (2007).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Foote
See State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298, 316 , 922 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 934 (2007).
cited
Cited "see"
Vredenburgh v. Norwalk Probate Court
See Vasquez v. Superior Court, 102 Conn. App. 394, 412-13 , 925 A.2d 1112 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 915 , 931 A.2d 935 (2007).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Elysa D.
See Vasquez v. Superior Court, 102 Conn. App. 394, 412 , 925 A.2d 1112 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 915 , 931 A.2d 935 (2007). 2 The maternal grandmother is the appellee on appeal.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Parnoff v. Aquarian Water Co. of Connecticut (AC40383)
(2×)
See, e.g., Tracy v. New Milford Public Schools , 101 Conn. App. 560 , 567-70, 922 A.2d 280 (conduct not outrageous where plaintiff's supervisor conspired with superintendent in pattern of harassment including denial of position, initiating disciplinary actions without proper investigation, defamation of character and intimidation), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 935 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sidorova v. East Lyme Board of Education
(2×)
Moreover, motions to dismiss or strike are distinct from motions for summary judgment. ‘‘A trial court applies different principles and a different analysis when ruling on a motion to dismiss as opposed to a motion for summary judgment.’’ Henderson v. Lagoudis, 148 Conn. App. 330, 339 , 85 A.3d 53 (2014); Manifold v. Ragaglia, 94 Conn. App. 103, 120 , 891 A.2d 106 (2006) (‘‘[w]hereas a motion to dismiss is decided only on the allegations in the complaint and the facts implied from those allegations, summary judgment is decided by looking at all of the pleadings, affidavits and docu…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ocasio
See, e.g., State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298, 316 , 922 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 934 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gillians v. Vivanco-Small
(2×)
See, e.g., Tracy v. New Milford Public Schools, 101 Conn. App. 560, 567-70 , 922 A.2d 280 (conduct not outrageous where supervisor conspired with superintendent in pattern of harassment including denial of position, initiating disciplinary actions without proper investigation, defamation of character and intimidation), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 935 (2007).
Michael TRACY
v.
NEW MILFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS et al.
v.
NEW MILFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS et al.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 12, 2007.
Published
David V. DeRosa, in support of the petition.
Mark J. Sommaruga, Hartford, in opposition.
The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 101 Conn.App. 560, 922 A.2d 280 (2007), is denied.