State v. Dalzell, 908 A.2d 539 (Conn. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Dalzell, 908 A.2d 539 (Conn. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (33 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Martowska v. White (connappct, 2014-04-08)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Martowska v. White
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Anthony E., 96 Conn. App. 414, 418 , 900 A.2d 594 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 914 , 908 A.2d 535 (2006). 9 The plaintiff initially appealed the court’s denial of his motion to enforce.
discussed Cited "see" Michalski v. Hinz (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Spencer v. Star Steel Structures, Inc., 96 Conn. App. 142, 151 , 900 A.2d 42 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 914 , 908 A.2d 539 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Roy Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
He is neither so violent nor so dangerous at this time as to require maximum security confinement and may be transferred to the less restrictive treatment environment of Dutcher.” 4 “As an intermediate appellate court, we are bound by Supreme Court precedent and are unable to modify it . . . .” (Citation omitted.) Hopkins v. Commissioner of Correction, 95 Conn. App. 670, 672 , 899 A.2d 632 , cert. denied, 279 Conn. 911 , 902 A.2d 1071 (2006); see also State v. Alexander, 95 Conn. App. 154 , 159 n.3, 895 A.2d 865 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 909 , 908 A.2d 539 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
Edward R. Dalzell
SC 17736.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 20, 2006.
908 A.2d 539
Robert J. Scheinblum, senior assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition., Elizabeth M. Inkster, senior assistant public defender, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 96 Conn. App. 515 (AC 26255), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly reach the question whether the defendant’s arrest for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs was based on probable cause, and, if so, did it properly conclude that probable cause was lacking?”