green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Thomas S.
See State v. Winter, 117 Conn. App. 493, 501 , 979 A.2d 608 (2009) (‘‘[a]n order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 295 Conn. 922 , 991 A.2d 569 (2010). 4 The criminal protective order issued on January 28, 2019, was still in effect on this date. 5 The record does not reflect the reason why the department did not discover the criminal protective order. 6 The defendant covered the bins with lids when McManus arrived.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Inglis
Accord- ingly, it does not merit Golding review.’’ State v. Antwon W., 118 Conn. App. 180, 201 , 982 A.2d 1112 (2009), cert. denied, 295 Conn. 922 , 991 A.2d 568 (2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Nesbitt
See State v. Winter, 117 Conn.App. 493, 500 , 979 A.2d 608 (2009) (challenge to validity of protective order analyzed as challenge to factual findings of court), cert. denied, 295 Conn. 922 , 991 A.2d 569 (2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Fluker
See State v. Antwon W., 118 Conn. App. 180, 191 , 982 A.2d 1112 (2009), cert. denied, 295 Conn. 922 , 991 A.2d 568 (2010); see also State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 240 . *369 II Next, the defendant claims that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial impropriety by deliberately disregarding a court order regarding the admissibility of certain evidence involving police efforts to locate the defendant.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Nowacki
See, e.g., State v. Winter, 117 Conn. App. 493 , 495–96, 979 A.2d 608 (2009) (defendant violated protective order prohibiting harass- ment of former girlfriend), cert. denied, 295 Conn. 922 , 991 A.2d 569 (2010); State v. Cummings, supra, 46 Conn. App. 665 (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kosiorek v. Smigelski
Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dreambuilders Construction, LLC v. Diamond, 121 Conn. App. 554, 564 , 997 A.2d 553 (2010); see also Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Fequiere, 119 Conn. App. 570, 580 , 989 A.2d 606 (“mere conclusory assertions regarding a claim with no mention of relevant authority and minimal or no citations from the record will not suffice” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 295 Conn. 922 , 991 A.2d 564 (2010). 20 The de…
CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC
v.
Germanie FEQUIERE.
v.
Germanie FEQUIERE.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 30, 2010.
Published
Edward F. Kunin, in support of the petition.
S. Bruce Fair, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 119 Conn.App. 570, 989 A.2d 606 (2010), is denied.