green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967
1996
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Doe v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.
See State v. Taylor, 153 Conn. 72, 82 , 214 A.2d 362 (1965) (“[o]ur common law . . . considers a minor to be any person under the age of twenty-one”), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S. Ct. 1372 , 16 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Martin
See State v. Taylor, 153 Conn. 72, 85-86 , 214 A.2d 362 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S. Ct. 1372 , 16 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Copeland v. Warden, State Prison
Accordingly, the “power to stay the execution of a sentence, in whole or in part, in a criminal case, is inherent in every court having final jurisdiction in such cases, unless otherwise provided by statute.” Weber v. State, 58 Ohio 616 , 51 N.E. 116 (1898); see State v. Taylor, 153 Conn. 72, 80 , 214 A.2d 362 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 921 , 84 S. Ct. 1372 , 16 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Scott v. State
See Hashfield v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 95 , 210 N.E.2d 429 , cert. denied, 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S.Ct. 1373 , 16 L.Ed.2d 442 (1966) (court appointed three physicians to assist defendant in addition to psychiatrists appointed pursuant to insanity statute). 3 Citing our practice and those of other states, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that due process requires the appointment of psychiatric experts, at least when sanity is an issue.
discussed
Cited "see"
Haggenjos v. State
(2×)
See Hashfield v. State, (1965) 247 Ind. 95, 103-04 , 210 N.E.2d 429, 434-35 , cert. denied, (1966) 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S.Ct. 1373 , 16 L.Ed.2d 442 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gonzalez
The Appellate Session concluded that the state failed to prove such an entry beyond a reasonable doubt; that permissible inferences from the evidence did not follow reasonably and logically from all the facts; see State v. Taylor, 153 Conn. 72, 78 , 214 A.2d 362 , cert. denied, 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S. Ct. 1372 , 16 L.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Maurice W. Stevenson
See Bushaw v. United States, 353 F.2d 477, 481 (9th Cir. *29 1965), cert. denied 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S.Ct. 1371 , 16 L.Ed.2d 441 (1966).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gordon v. United States
See Bruce v. United States, 351 F.2d 318, 322 (5th Cir. 1965) cert. denied 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S.Ct. 1370 , 16 L.Ed.2d 441 73 Contrary to the appellants' argument that the charts usurped the function of the jury, the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 503 , 63 S.Ct. 1233 , 87 L.Ed. 1546 (1943): No issue was withdrawn from the jury.
cited
Cited "see"
Gordon v. United States
See Bruce v. United States, 351 F.2d 318, 322 (5th Cir. 1965) cert. denied 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S.Ct. 1370 , 16 L.Ed.2d 441 . .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Towles
State v. Groos, 110 Conn. 403, 407 , 148 A. 350 ; see State v. Taylor, 153 Conn. 72, 76 , 214 A.2d 362 , cert. denied, 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S. Ct. 1372 , 16 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Henry
“Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion . . . and the district court’s application of constitutional standards is reviewed de novo.” (Citation omitted.) United States v. Dhinsa, supra, 243 F.3d 649 ; see also State v. Taylor, 153 Conn. 72, 75 , 214 A.2d 362 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S. Ct. 1372 , 16 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Stevenson
Practice Book §§ 854, 3063; see also State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 81 , 502 A.2d 388 (1985). “ ‘Only in most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court.’ State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973). ‘The policy behind this rule is both ancient and sound and “does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to fail, whether from a mistake of law, inattention or design, to object to matters occurring during a trial until jt is too late for them to be corrected or …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alfred Dallago v. United States
See, e. g., Bruce v. United States, 351 F.2d 318, 320 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S.Ct. 1370 , 16 L.Ed.2d 441 (1966); Shayne v. United States, 255 F.2d 739, 743 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 823 , 79 S.Ct. 39 , 3 L.Ed.2d 64 (1958); Wall v. United States, 384 F.2d 758, 763 (10th Cir. 1967). 17 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Marvin Feinberg
(2×)
See, e.g., Bruce v. United States, 351 F.2d 318, 320 (5 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S.Ct. 1370 , 16 L.Ed.2d 441 (1966); Hoopengarner v. United States, 270 F.2d 465, 469 (6 Cir. 1959); Harlow v. United States, supra at 366.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lovell
v.
Tennessee
v.
Tennessee
No. 1119.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 25, 1966.
384 U.S. 921
John F. Dugger for petitioner. George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Robert F. Hedgepath, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Published
Sup. Ct. Term. Certiorari denied.