O'Brien v. Superior Court, Jud. Dist. of Hartford, 947 A.2d 342 (Conn. 2008). · Go Syfert
O'Brien v. Superior Court, Jud. Dist. of Hartford, 947 A.2d 342 (Conn. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gamble v. Commissioner of Correction (connappct, 2018-01-23)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Gamble v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hamlett , 105 Conn. App. 862 , 867, 939 A.2d 1256 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 901 , 947 A.2d 343 (2008). 8 The jury had for its consideration conflicting accounts as to who fired the SKS rifle.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Myers
Conn. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Additionally, although the defendant acknowledges that a venireperson’s troubled past has been held to constitute a race neutral ground for questioning his or her ability to be impartial; see State v. Hamlett, 105 Conn. App. 862, 878-79 , 939 A.2d 1256 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 901 ,947A.2d343 (2008); he argues that D’s troubled past was so distant, occurring nearly twenty years before, that it would not affect his ability to be impartial.
cited Cited "see" State v. Collazo
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hamlett, 105 Conn. App. 862, 878 , 939 A.2d 1256 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 901 , 947 A.2d 343 (2008).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lafferty v. Jones
Conn. App. Ct. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
See General Statutes § 51-183c;54 Practice Book § 1-22 (a); see also O’Brien v. Superior Court, 105 Conn. App. 774 , 797 and n.27, 939 A.2d 1223 (citing Practice Book § 1-22 (a) in remanding case to trial court for further hearing on certain sanctions after concluding that evi- dence did not establish that plaintiff in error violated two out of four Rules of Professional Conduct), cert. denied, 287 Conn. 901 , 947 A.2d 342 (2008).55 The writ of error is granted in part and the case is remanded with direction to vacate the trial court’s findings that the plaintiff in error violated Rules…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lafferty v. Jones
Conn. App. Ct. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
See General Statutes § 51-183c;54 Practice Book § 1-22 (a); see also O’Brien v. Superior Court, 105 Conn. App. 774 , 797 and n.27, 939 A.2d 1223 (citing Practice Book § 1-22 (a) in remanding case to trial court for further hearing on certain sanctions after concluding that evi- dence did not establish that plaintiff in error violated two out of four Rules of Professional Conduct), cert. denied, 287 Conn. 901 , 947 A.2d 342 (2008).55 The writ of error is granted in part and the case is remanded with direction to vacate the trial court’s findings that the plaintiff violated Rules of Profe…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Jackson
Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
We note that even in circumstances where the state has committed a discovery violation, "[s]uppression of relevant, material and otherwise admissible evidence is a severe sanction which should not be invoked lightly." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cooke , supra, 134 Conn. App. at 579 , 39 A.3d 1178 ; see also State v. Hamlett , 105 Conn. App. 862 , 874, 939 A.2d 1256 (denial of proposed remedy of exclusion of police officer's field notes, which were not previously disclosed to defense and which affected defense strategy of contradicting victim through police report, was not abus…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John F. O’brien
v.
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Apr 30, 2008.
947 A.2d 342
John F. O’Brien, pro se, in support of the petition., Peregrine Zinn-Rowthom, assistant attorney general, in opposition.
Rogers.
Published

The petition by the plaintiff in error for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 105 Conn. App. 774 (AC 26361), is denied.

ROGERS, C. J., and SCHALLER, J.,

did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.