green
Positive treatment
9.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Vena
See State v. Beaulieu, 118 Conn. App. 1, 7 , 982 A.2d 245 (‘‘[d]efendants who 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 17 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 19 Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Vena seek consideration of unpreserved constitutional claims [on appeal] . . . bear the burden of establishing their entitlement to such review under the guidelines enumerated in Golding’’ (internal quotation marks omit- ted)), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 921 , 984 A.2d 68 (2009).
cited
Cited "see"
Karen v. Loftus
See Spilke v. Spilke, 116 Conn. App. 590 , 593–94 and n.6, 976 A.2d 69 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 918 , 984 A.2d 68 (2009); Oneglia v. Oneglia, 14 Conn. App. 267 , 269–70, 540 A.2d 713 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Morales
See, e.g., State v. Miranda, supra, 260 Conn. 124 (holding that although state alleged continuous failure to protect from harm that led to victim’s injuries, no double jeopardy violation where record established that distinct act led to each injury); accord State v. Beaulieu, 118 Conn. App. 1, 14 , 982 A.2d 245 (holding that luring minor victim into location to engage in sexual act and engaging in sexual act with victim were separate acts for double jeopardy purposes), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 921 , 984 A.2d 68 (2009); see also State v. Shenkman, supra, 154 Conn. App. 68 n.12, and cases cited…
cited
Cited "see"
Brady-Kinsella v. Kinsella
See Spilke v. Spilke, 116 Conn. App. 590, 596 , 976 A.2d 69 (‘‘[a] court is entitled to rely upon the truth and accuracy of sworn statements’’), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 918 , 984 A.2d 68 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brody v. Brody
The court held that ‘‘[i]f the plaintiff was able to substantiate her allegations of fraud beyond mere suspicion, then the court [properly] would open the judgment for the limited purpose of discovery, and would later issue an ultimate decision on the motion to open after discovery had been completed and another hearing held.’’ Id., 270 ; accord Spilke v. Spilke, 116 Conn. App. 590, 600 , 976 A.2d 69 (court properly denied motion to open ‘‘because the plaintiff was unable to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold of establishing her allegations of fraud beyond a mere suspicion’�…
cited
Cited "see"
Bruno v. Bruno
See Spilke v. Spilke, 116 Conn. App. 590, 593-94 , 976 A.2d 69 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 918 , 984 A.2d 68 (2009).
cited
Cited "see"
Lynch v. Lynch
See Spilke v. Spilke, 116 Conn. App. 590, 597 , 976 A.2d 69 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 918 , 984 A.2d 68 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
Balaska v. Balaska
See State v. Beaulieu, 118 Conn. App. 1, 7 , 982 A.2d 245 (in absence of briefing Golding analysis adequately, this court will not address unpreserved claims raised by appellant), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 921 , 984 A.2d 68 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Homebridge Financial Services, Inc. v. Jakubiec
Co., 328 Conn. 60 , 70–71, 176 A.3d 1167 (2018); see also West Haven Lumber Co. v. Sentry Construction Corp., 117 Conn. App. 465, 476 , 979 A.2d 591 (denial of motion for nonsuit was not abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 919 , 984 A.2d 70 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Peluso
Every reasonable presumption in favor of the proper exercise of the trial court's discretion will be made." [Internal quotation marks omitted.] ), cert. denied, 270 Conn. 915 , 853 A.2d 530 (2004) ; see also West Haven Lumber Co. v. Sentry Construction Corp. , 117 Conn. App. 465 , 472, 979 A.2d 591 (defendant did not meet burden of proof in showing that court's denial of motion for a continuance was unreasonable or arbitrary decision), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 919 , 984 A.2d 70 (2009) ; O'Connell v. O'Connell , 101 Conn. App. 516 , 525-27, 922 A.2d 293 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Hess Corp.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kelly v. Kelly , 85 Conn.App. 794 , 800, 859 A.2d 60 (2004) ; see also West Haven Lumber Co. v. Sentry Construction Corp. , 117 Conn.App. 465 , 469-70, 979 A.2d 591 (trial court entitled to broad discretion in discharging its "responsibility to avoid unnecessary interruptions, to maintain the orderly procedure of the court docket, and to prevent any interferences with the fair administration of justice" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 919 , 984 A.2d 70 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cimino v. Cimino
If the moving party demonstrates to the court that there is probable cause to believe that the judgment was obtained by fraud, the court may permit discovery." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gaary v. Gillis , 162 Conn.App. 251 , 255-57, 131 A.3d 765 (2016) ; see also Spilke v. Spilke , 116 Conn.App. 590 , 594-95, 976 A.2d 69 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 918 , 984 A.2d 68 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Filippelli v. Saint Mary's Hospital
See Friends of Animals, Inc. v. United Illuminating Co., 124 Conn. App. 823 , 836 n.10, 6 A.3d 1180 (2010), citing Krevis v. Bridgeport, 262 Conn. 813, 819 , 817 A.2d 628 (2003); see also West Haven Lumber Co. v. Sentry Construction Corp., 117 Conn. App. 465, 469 , 979 A.2d 591 (control of courtroom proceedings particular province of trial court), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 919 , 984 A.2d 70 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Aziza S.-B.
“The court’s decision must be read and construed in its entirety.” Mafcote Industries, Inc. v. Gannicott Ltd., 60 Conn. App. 393, 396 , 759 A.2d 153 (2000); see also In re G.S., 117 Conn. App. 710, 719 , 980 A.2d 935 (review court’s decision in its entirety), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 919 , 984 A.2d 67 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Messiah S.
“The court’s decision must be read and construed in its entirety.” Mafcote Industries, Inc. v. Gannicott Ltd., 60 Conn. App. 393, 396 , 759 A.2d 153 (2000); see also In re G.S., 117 Conn. App. 710, 719 , 980 A.2d 936 (review court’s decision in its entirety), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 919 , 984 A.2d 67 (2009).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
Brenda J. Larsen
v.
Brenda J. Larsen
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 9, 2009.
Martha Hansen, special public defender, in support of the petition., James A. Kitten, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Vertefeuille.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 117 Conn. App. 202 (AC 29833), is denied.
VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.