PACK 2000, INC. v. Cushman, 19 A.3d 177 (Conn. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
PACK 2000, INC. v. Cushman, 19 A.3d 177 (Conn. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (34 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Doe v. Flanigan (connappct, 2020-11-24)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Doe v. Flanigan (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smart v. Corbitt, 126 Conn. App. 788, 800 , 14 A.3d 368 , cert. denied, 301 Conn. 907 , 19 A.3d 177 (2011). . . .
discussed Cited "see" Lamar v. Brevetti (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smart v. Corbitt , 126 Conn.App. 788 , 800, 14 A.3d 368 (police functions generally categorized as discretionary acts), cert. denied, 301 Conn. 907 , 19 A.3d 177 (2011).
cited Cited "see" GIEDRIMIENE v. Emmanuel
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Giedrimiene v. Emmanuel, 301 Conn. 907 , 18 A.3d 589 (2011).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Ziolkowski
Conn. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the [jury’s] verdict of guilty.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rhodes, 335 Conn. 226, 229 , 249 A.3d 683 (2020); see, e.g., State v. Ramey, 127 Conn. App. 560 , 567–68, 14 A.3d 474 (rejecting defendant’s theory that, because suicide was his primary goal, he lacked specific intent to damage or destroy building), cert. denied, 301 Conn. 910 , 19 A.3d 177 (2011).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Williams v. Housing Authority (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Smart v. Corbitt, 126 Conn. App. 788 , 808 and n.15, 14 A.3d 368 , cert. denied, 301 Conn. 907 , 19 A.3d 177 (2011).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Pack 2000, Inc.
v.
Eugene C. Cushman
SC 18789.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
May 11, 2011.
19 A.3d 177
Andrew Brand, in support of the petition., Joseph M. Busker, Jr., in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 126 Conn. App. 339 (AC 30540), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“Did the Appellate Court properly determine that lease/option agreements are subject to a strict compliance standard? If not, should the Appellate Court be reversed under the applicable standard?”