State v. Kendall, 10 A.3d 521 (Conn. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Kendall, 10 A.3d 521 (Conn. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction (connappct, 2024-12-17)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Kendall, 123 Conn. App. 625 , 650–51, 2 A.3d 990 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 902 , 10 A.3d 521 (2010).
cited Cited "see" Kendall v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Kendall, 123 Conn. App. 625 , 2 A.3d 990 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 902 , 10 A.3d 521 (2010).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Friend
Conn. App. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Kendall, 123 Conn. App. 625 , 643–44, 2 A.3d 990 (finding it proper for prosecutor, following defendant’s closing argument, to highlight dif- ference between state’s version and defendant’s version of facts and inferences properly drawn from those facts), cert. denied, 299 Conn. 902 , 10 A.3d 521 (2010).
discussed Cited "see" State v. EDWARD M.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Kendall, 123 Conn. App. 625, 636 , 2 A.3d 990 (“[i]n addressing the jury, [cjounsel must be allowed a generous latitude in argument, as the limits of legitimate argument and fair comment cannot be determined precisely by rule and line, and something must be allowed for the zeal of counsel in the heat of argument” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 299 Conn. 902 , 10 A.3d 521 (2010).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fajardo v. Boston Scientific Corp.
Conn. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Bettini, 11 Conn. App. 684, 690 , 528 A.2d 1180 (‘‘[i]n the absence of compliance with the rules of practice, the trial court is entitled to deny a request to charge’’), cert. denied, 205 Conn. 804 , 531 A.2d 937 (1987); see also State v. Kendall, 123 Conn. App. 625, 672 , 2 A.3d 990 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 902 , 10 A.3d 521 (2010).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fajardo v. Boston Scientific Corp.
Conn. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Bettini, 11 Conn. App. 684, 690 , 528 A.2d 1180 (‘‘[i]n the absence of compliance with the rules of practice, the trial court is entitled to deny a request to charge’’), cert. denied, 205 Conn. 804 , 531 A.2d 937 (1987); see also State v. Kendall, 123 Conn. App. 625, 672 , 2 A.3d 990 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 902 , 10 A.3d 521 (2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Michael KENDALL.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 27, 2010.
10 A.3d 521
Published

James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

Bruce R. Lockwood, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 123 Conn.App. 625, 2 A.3d 990 (2010), is denied.