green
Positive treatment
6.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Eason
Our Supreme Court repeatedly has held that “a nonconstitutional claim cannot be transformed into a constitutional claim simply by virtue of the label placed upon it by a party.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. King, 249 Conn. 645 , 680 n.39, 735 A.2d 267 (1999); see State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 502-503 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996) (“it would trivialize the constitution to transmute a nonconstitutional claim into a constitutional claim simply because of the label placed on it by a party” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
SOUTH WINDSOR CEMETERY ASS'N, INC. v. Lindquist
See State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 502-503 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996) (“ ‘it would trivialize the constitution to transmute a nonconstitutional claim into a constitutional claim simply because of the label placed on it by a party’ ”), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Meaden
See In re Abrams, 689 A.2d 6, 7 (D.C.) (en banc), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S.Ct. 2515 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Rivera
See State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 499-500 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sanchez
See State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 499 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996) (identification not unnecessarily suggestive where defendant’s photograph one of two that was glossier, brighter than others in array), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Whipper
See State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 502-503 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Williams
“An improper instruction on a defense, like an improper instruction on an element of an offense, is of constitutional dimension.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lemoine, 256 Conn. 193, 198-99 , 770 A.2d 491 (2001); see State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 512 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Andresen
See State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 512 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Malave
In 1998, however, the legislature prohibited the use of the missing witness instruction in civil cases; Public Acts 1998, No. 98-50; 7 and this court, acknowledging that the vitality of the Secondino rule has been questioned; see State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481 , 493 n.9, 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bonsu
See State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 490 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hawkins v. City & County of Denver
See Revo v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court for the State of N.M., 106 F.3d 929, 932 (10th Cir.1997), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2515 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1997); Brown v. Palmer, 915 F.2d 1435, 1441 (10th Cir.1990), aff'd on reh’g en banc, 944 F.2d 732 , 733 n. 1 (10th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hawkins v. City And County Of Denver
See Revo v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court for the State of N.M., 106 F.3d 929, 932 (10th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S.Ct. 2515 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1997); Brown v. Palmer, 915 F.2d 1435, 1441 (10th Cir.1990), aff'd on reh'g en banc, 944 F.2d 732 , 733 n. 1 (10th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Newman v. Deiter
See In the Matter of the Adoption of L.C., 650 N.E.2d 726 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), reh'g. denied, trans. denied, cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1136 , 116 S.Ct. 1423 , 134 L.Ed.2d 547 , and In the Matter of L.C., 659 N.E.2d 593 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) reh'g. denied, trans. denied, cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2515 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1017 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Clark
See State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 490 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Z.J. Gifts D-2, L.L.C. v. City of Aurora
See Revo v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court, 106 F.3d 929 , 932 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2515 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Harris
See id., at 161-63 , 967 A.2d 56 ; see also State v. Taylor , 239 Conn. 481 , 499-500, 687 A.2d 489 (1996) ("there exists no constitutional mandate that gives the defendant the right to a photographic array of look-alikes"), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S.Ct. 2515 , 138 L.Ed. 2d 1017 (1997) ; State v. Vaughn , 199 Conn. 557 , 564, 508 A.2d 430 ("[a]ny array composed of different individuals must necessarily contain certain differences"), cert. denied, **104 479 U.S. 989 , 107 S.Ct. 583 , 93 L.Ed. 2d 585 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Bowman
The general rule is well established that “the admissibility of evidence is a matter of state law and unless there is a resultant denial of fundamental fairness or the denial of a specific constitutional right, no constitutional issue is involved.” *820 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Walker, 215 Conn. 1, 5 , 547 A.2d 188 (1990), quoting State v. Periere, 186 Conn. 599, 611 , 442 A.2d 1345 (1982); see also State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 493 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Aponte
See State v. Theriault, 182 Conn. 366, 378-79 , 438 A.2d 432 (1980) (jury instruction that has effect of relieving state of burden of proving essential element of crime charged implicates defendant’s right to due process); see also State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 512 , 687 A.2d 489 (1996) (Berdon, J., dissenting) (jury instruction that dilutes state’s burden of proof or places burden on defendant raises constitutional issue), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121 , 117 S. Ct. 2515 , 138 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wallace v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
Cf. In re Reback, 513 A.2d 226 (D.C.1986) (en banc) (forgery of client’s signature); see also In re Abrams, 689 A.2d 6, 22-23 (D.C.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2515 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1997) (surveying eases involving dishonest conduct by attorneys).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bell v. Legal Advertising Committee
See Feldman; Razatos; see also Revo v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court for the State of New Mexico, 106 F.3d 929 (10th Cir.) (case in *1238 which general challenge to one aspect of advertising rules was brought in federal district court), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 2515 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rush
v.
Texas
v.
Texas
No. 96-1842.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 27, 1997.
Published
Ct. App. Tex., 1st Dist. Cer-
tiorari denied.