green
Positive treatment
3.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Williams
“The first two questions relate to whether a defendant’s claim is reviewable, and the last two relate to the substance of the actual review.” State v. Newton, 8 Conn. App. 528, 531 , 513 A.2d 1261 (1986); see State v. Manfredi, 17 Conn. App. 602, 621 , 555 A.2d 436 (1989), aff'd, 213 Conn. 500 , 569 A.2d 506 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 818 , 111 S. Ct. 62 , 112 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Suttie v. Sloan Sales, Inc.
See Caluri v. Rypkema, 570 A.2d 830, 832-33 (Me.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 818 , 111 S.Ct. 62 , 112 L.Ed.2d 37 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Oken v. State
(2×)
See State v. Oken, 569 A.2d 1218 (Me.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 818 , 111 S.Ct. 62 , 112 L.Ed.2d 36 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Koshy
The elements of an agency relationship are “(1) authorization from the principal that the agent shall act for him or her; (2) the agent’s consent to so act; and (3) the understanding that the principal is to exert some control over the agent’s actions.” Dent v. Exeter Hosp., Inc., 155 N.H. 787 , 931 A.2d 1203, 1209 (2007) (quotation marks omitted); see also Caluri v. Rypkema, 570 A.2d 830, 832-33 (Me.1990) (stating same elements of agency in Maine), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 818 , 111 S.Ct. 62 , 112 L.Ed.2d 37 (1990). [¶ 17] Although Scandent was not listed on the rental agreement, and t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ross
Ed. 2d 336 (1987); see also State v. Manfredi, 213 Conn. 500, 513 , 569 A.2d 506 (defendant waives fifth amendment privilege against sett-incrimination when he places mental status in issue), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 818 , 111 S. Ct. 62 , 112 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ross
See, e.g., Practice Book § 758 (requiring the defendant to notify the state that he or she intends to rely on the defense of mental disease or defect); Practice Book § 759 (requiring the defendant to notify the state that he or she intends to introduce expert testimony concerning a mental dis ease or defect, and to disclose any reports of mental examinations); Practice Book § 760 (requiring the defendant to submit to a psychiatric examination); Practice Book § 761 (authorizing the court to exclude expert testimony if the defendant fails to comply with §§ 759 and 760); see also State v. M…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Lazzarino
And the attorney’s presence in such a purely observational capacity, without ability to advise, suggest or object, would have no relationship to the Sixth Amendment’s [guarantee to the assistance of counsel].” (United States v Byers, 740 F2d 1104, 1120, supra; see also, State v Manfredi, 17 Conn App 602, 555 A2d 436 , cert granted in part 211 Conn 809, 559 A2d 1142 , affd 213 Conn 500, 569 A2d 506 , cert denied 498 US 818 .) I note, in so concluding, that this reasoning has been applied in similar presentence circumstances, by at least one New York State trial court to date.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rankin
v.
Illinois
v.
Illinois
No. 89-1891.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1990.
Published
App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.