green
Positive treatment
Trending · 118 recent citers
14.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Han
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 , 412 n.63, 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Durdek
See State v. Peeler , 271 Conn. 338 , 384, 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S.Ct. 94 , 163 L.Ed.2d 110 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Cruz v. Superior Court
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 , 432 n.79, 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Obas
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 409 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Banks
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 436 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (statutes are to be interpreted in accord with fundamental purpose), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Crawley
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 , 369 n.29, 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Egan v. Planning Board of Stamford
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 434 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lahai
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 389 , 857 A. 2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Carrion
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 , 369 n.29, 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Nazarian
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 , 369 n.29, 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Reid
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 , 369 n.29, 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gaskin
See State v. Na’im B., supra, 113 Conn. App. 793 . “[T]he linchpin of the determination of the defendant’s access to the records is whether they sufficiently disclose material especially probative of the ability to comprehend, know and correctly relate the truth . . . so as to justify breach of their confidentiality and disclosing them to the defendant in order to protect his right of confrontation.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 381 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (appellate court should not disturb trial court ruling absent abuse of discretion), cert. deni…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bell
Thus, we are guided by our well settled rules of statutory construction; see State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 434 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Flanagan
(2×)
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 399 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (mixed questions of law and fact subject to plenary review), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Thompson
Although the function of the appellant’s reply brief is to respond to the arguments and authority presented in the appellee’s brief, that function does not include raising an entirely new claim of error. . . . [T]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under ... [a] Golding analysis.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997); see State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 , 373 n.36, 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (“[w]e generally do not consider issues raised for the first ti…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Stepney
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 , 373 n.36, 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Dean
See State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 399 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Henderson
See, e.g., State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 , 415–16, 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cody M.
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 399 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (‘‘we need not reach the merits of the defendant’s constitu- tional claims because, even if we were to assume that the defendant’s claims are valid, the state has estab- lished beyond a reasonable doubt that any impropriety was harmless’’), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S.C. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cody M.
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 399 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (‘‘we need not reach the merits of the defendant’s constitutional claims because, even if we were to assume that the defendant’s claims are valid, the state has established beyond a reasonable doubt that any impropriety was harmless’’), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S.C. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Leniart
See, e.g., State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 , 383–85, 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (trial court’s failure to admit mental health records of state’s witness precluded relevant line of inquiry into witness’ ability to perceive events and was therefore of constitutional magnitude), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Weatherspoon
We therefore consider it in accordance with the principles for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims articulated by this court in State v. Golding ...."); see also State v. Peeler , 271 Conn. 338 , 360, 857 A.2d 808 (2004) ("[t]he first two [prongs of Golding ] involve a determination of whether the claim is reviewable" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Benedict v. Town of Norfolk
See, e.g., State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 427-28 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (“although legislative inaction is not necessarily legislative affirmation . . . we . . . presume that the legislature is aware of [this court’s] interpretation *521 of a statute, and that its subsequent nonaction may be understood as a validation of that interpretation” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cruz v. Montanez
See, e.g., State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 427-28 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (legislative inaction following this court’s interpretation of statute may be viewed as legislative acquiescence in that interpretation), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. NATHAN J.
See footnote 7 of this opinion; see also State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 427-28 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (“although legislative inaction is not necessarily legislative affirmation . . . we . . . presume that the legislature is aware of [this court’s] interpretation of a statute, and that its subsequent nonaction may be understood as a validation of that interpretation” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cutler
“Under Golding, a defendant can prevail on an unpreserved claim of constitutional error only if the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitt…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Elson
(2×)
Embalmers’ Supply Co. v. Giannitti, 103 Conn. App. 20, 61 , 929 A.2d 729 (court will not consider request for Golding review raised for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 931 , 934 A.2d 246 (2007).” State v. Faison, 112 Conn. App. 373, 381 , 962 A.2d 860 , cert. denied, 291 Conn. 903 , 967 A.2d 507 (2009); see also State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 , 373 n.36, 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (Supreme Court “generally do[es] not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief’ [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. ARTHUR H.
(2×)
See Dinan v. Marchand, 279 Conn. 558, 577-78 , 903 A.2d 201 (2006) (“[t]his court will not substitute its own language for that chosen by the legislature”); State v. Ball, 226 Conn. 265, 280 , 627 A.2d 892 (1993) (“this court lacks the authority to reshape public policy by construing a statute in a manner that alters its inherent meaning”); see also State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 434-35 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (court will not construe statute to render any part superfluous), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vincent v. City of New Haven
(2×)
Although, normally, the doctrine is applicable when the legislature fails to amend a statute within a reasonable period of time following this court’s interpretation of the provision at issue; see, e.g., State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 427-28 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (legislative inaction following this court’s interpretation of statute may be viewed as legislative acquiescence in that interpretation), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sawyer
Most importantly, we must examine the impact of the [improperly admitted] evidence on the trier of fact and the result of the trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez, supra, 272 Conn. 527 ; see also State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 385 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Brunetti
See, e.g., State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 360 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (first and second prongs of Golding “involve a determination of whether the claim is reviewable”) cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Martinez
See General Statutes § 53a-8 (a) (“[a] person, acting with the mental state required, for commission of an offense, who solicits, requests, commands, importunes or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable for such conduct and may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender” [emphasis added]); see also, e.g., State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 435 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (Rejecting the defendant’s claim that accessorial liability under § 53a-8 may not be used to prove aggravating factors necessary for t…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Patterson
See, e.g., State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 433-34 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Brunetti
See, e.g., State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 360 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004) (first and second prongs of Golding “involve a determination of whether the claim is reviewable”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McCurdy
v.
Adams, Warden
v.
Adams, Warden
No. 04-10316.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 2005.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.