green
Positive treatment
8.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction
See State v. Diaz, [ 109 Conn. App. 519, 559 , 952 A.2d 124 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 930 , 958 A.2d 161 (2008)].’’ (Cita- tion omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 200 Conn. App. 526–27. ‘‘[In] . . . 2015, the petitioner . . . filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is the operative petition in this appeal.
discussed
Cited "see"
Willis W. v. Office of Adult Probation
See State v. Diaz, 109 Conn. App. 519, 559 , 952 A.2d 124 (‘‘[w]e need not review the issue raised because in light of the court’s analysis, it is irrelevant to the judgment from which the defendant appeals’’), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 930 , 958 A.2d 161 (2008).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lee-Riveras
See State v. Diaz, 109 Conn. App. 519 , 529 n.5, 952 A.2d 124 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 930 , 958 A.2d 161 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Vilchel
The defendant does not request any type of extraordinary review of this unpreserved claim, and, as this court does not engage in a level of review that is not requested; see State v. Diaz, 109 Conn. App. 519 , 539 n.7, 952 A.2d 124 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 930 , 958 A.2d 161 (2008); we decline to review the claim.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. KHUTH
See State v. Diaz, 109 Conn. App. 519, 537 , 952 A.2d 124 (it is fundamentally unfair to state and to court for defendant to raise claim on appeal regarding jury instruction on which he was in agreement), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 930 , 958 A.2d 161 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Ceslik
See, e.g., State v. Diaz, 109 Conn. App. 519, 559 , 952 A.2d 124 (court declined to reach merits of appellant’s fourth amendment claim related to validity of initial search because trial court’s fourth amendment analysis was based on independent source doctrine and, thus, claim raised on appeal was ‘‘irrele- vant to the judgment from which the defendant appeal[ed]’’), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 930 , 958 A.2d 161 (2008); Ingels v. Saldana, 103 Conn. App. 724 , 728–29, 930 A.2d 774 (2007) (court declined to address merits of appellant’s breach of contract claim because trial court …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. United Technologies Corp.
See id., 606; see also In re Kevin K., 109 Conn. App. 206, 213 , 951 A.2d 39 (“[hjaving concluded that the text is not clear and unambiguous, we now must turn to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter for intexpretive guidance” [internal quotation *507 marks omitted]), cert. granted on other grounds, 289 Conn. 930 , 958 A.2d 159 (2008).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Daniel DIAZ.
v.
Daniel DIAZ.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 25, 2008.
Published
Mark Diamond, special public defender, in support of the petition.
Nancy L. Chupak, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 109 Conn.App. 519, 952 A.2d 124 (2008), is denied.