green
Positive treatment
13.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "see"
Davis v. Property Owners Assn. of Moodus Lake Shores, Inc.
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Mierzejewski v. Brownell, 102 Conn. App. 413, 414 , 925 A.2d 1126 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 917 , 931 A.2d 936 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
Zachs v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See State v. Frye, 224 Conn. 253, 262 , 617 A.2d 1382 (1992) (right to counsel is so basic that its violation mandates rever- sal even if no particular prejudice is shown and even if there is overwhelming evidence of guilt) . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Newland v. Com- missioner of Correction, 322 Conn. 664 , 699–700, 142 A.3d 1095 (2016) (McDonald, J., dissenting). ‘‘[C]ourts have rarely applied Cronic, emphasizing that only [non- representation], not poor representation, triggers a pre- sumption of prejudice.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Hutton v. Com…
discussed
Cited "see"
Romeo v. Bazow
See Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn. App. 125, 142 , 931 A.2d 269 (petition must contain ‘‘specific, good faith allegations of both relationship and harm’’ [emphasis added]), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 918 , 931 A.2d 936 (2007). 6 The defendant passingly argues in her appellate brief that the court should not have considered the allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ affida- vit, which was attached to and referenced in the plaintiffs’ petition.
cited
Cited "see"
Brady v. Bickford
See Fennelly v. Norton , 103 Conn. App. 125 , 133-34, 931 A.2d 269 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 918 , 931 A.2d 936 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Glastonbury
See Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn. App. 125 , 139 n.11, 931 A.2d 269 (noting that evidentiary hearing “is warranted ... in instances in which a motion to dismiss is accompanied by documentation, such as an affidavit, that raises a disputed issue of fact”), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 918 , 931 A.2d 936 (2007).
cited
Cited "see"
James v. Valley-Shore Y.M.C.A., Inc.
See Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn. App. 125 , 133 n.5, 931 A.2d 269 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 918 , 931 A.2d 936 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
Froom Development Corp. v. Developers Realty, Inc.
(2×)
See Mierzejewski v. Brownell, 102 Conn. App. 413, 422 , 925 A.2d 1126 (trier free to accept or reject, in whole or part, testimony offered by either party), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 917 , 931 A.2d 936 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
109 North, LLC v. Planning Com'n of Town of New Milford
See Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn. App. 125 , 133 n.5, 931 A.2d 269 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 918 , 931 A.2d 936 (2007). 10 The defendant has not alleged before the trial court or this court that the July 20, 2006 motion to “suspend, indefinitely, any further action or discussion” constituted either approval, disapproval or modification and approval under § 8-26.
discussed
Cited "see"
St. Germain v. LaBrie
See Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn. App. 125 , 139 n.11, 931 A.2d 269 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 918 , 931 A.2d 936 (2007). *593 We first address the portion of the plaintiffs complaint seeking to control the activities of persons on the premises.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Leon v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See, e.g., Hutton v. Commissioner of Correction , 102 Conn. App. 845 , 855, 928 A.2d 549 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 917 , 931 A.2d 936 (2007) ; see also Davis v. Commissioner of Correction , 319 Conn. 548 , 555, 126 A.3d 538 (2015), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Firstenberg v. Madigan
The law is clear that whether the petitioner alleged the required jurisdictional elements is determined by "examin[ing] the allegations of the petition and compar[ing] them to the [statutorily prescribed] jurisdictional requirements ...." (Emphasis added.) Roth v. Weston , supra, 259 Conn. at 235 , 789 A.2d 431 ; see also Fennelly v. Norton , 103 Conn. App. 125 , 139, 931 A.2d 269 ("[b]ecause the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was predicated on the insufficiency of the application for visitation, it was inappropriate for the court to look beyond that pleading and permit…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Martocchio v. Savoir
It also stated that Roth ‘‘established the threshold requirements for a trial court to acquire subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a petition for visitation pursu- ant to § 46b-59 . . . .’’ Id.; see also Fennelly v. Norton, 103 Conn. App. 125, 136 , 931 A.2d 269 (Roth distin- guished issue of whether court had jurisdiction over application for visitation from whether court should grant such application), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 918 , 931 A.2d 936 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blum v. Blum
(2×)
West Farms Mall, LLC v. West Hartford, 279 Conn. 1, 17 , 901 A.2d 649 (2006); see also Mierzejewski v. Brownell, 102 Conn. App. 413, 422 , 925 A.2d 1126 (trier free to accept or reject, in whole or part, testimony offered by either party), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 917 , 931 A.2d 936 (2007).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles D. MIERZEJEWSKI,
v.
Crary BROWNELL.
v.
Crary BROWNELL.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 21, 2007.
Rogers.
Published
William Howard and David J. Tycz, Middletown, in support of the petition.
Scott W. Jezek, Moodus, in opposition.
The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 102 Conn.App. 413, 925 A.2d 1126 (2007), is denied.
ROGERS, C.J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.