Reizfeld v. Reizfeld, 13 A.3d 1103 (Conn. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Reizfeld v. Reizfeld, 13 A.3d 1103 (Conn. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Carter v. Commissioner of Correction (connappct, 2021-04-13)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Carter v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Carter, 122 Conn. App. 527 , 529–30, 998 A.2d 1217 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 915 , 13 A.3d 1104 (2011).
cited Cited "see" Deroy v. Reck
Conn. App. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See James v. Valley-Shore Y.M.C.A., Inc. , 125 Conn. App. 174 , 176 n.1, 6 A.3d 1199 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 916 , 13 A.3d 1103 (2011).
discussed Cited "see" R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Carter , 122 Conn.App. 527 , 533, 998 A.2d 1217 (2010) ("[a]bsent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the court properly applied [the] law"), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 915 , 13 A.3d 1104 (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
While we rec- ognize that statements made during closing arguments do not constitute evidence before the jury; see State v. Carter, 122 Conn. App. 527, 533 , 998 A.2d 1217 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 915 , 13 A.3d 1104 (2011); we agree that St.
cited Cited "see" State v. Carter
Conn. App. Ct. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Carter, 122 Conn. App. 527 , 998 A.2d 1217 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 915 , 13 A.3d 1104 (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Langley v. Langley
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Carter, 122 Conn. App. 527, 533 , 998 A.2d 1217 (2010) (“[a]bsent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the court properly applied that law”), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 915 , 13 A.3d 1104 (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Davis v. Commissioner of Correction (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See James v. Valley-Shore Y.M.C.A, Inc., 125 Conn. App. 174 , 176 n.1, 6 A.3d 1199 (2010) (“[i]n tight of our conclusion that summary judgment was appropriate on that ground, we do not address the court’s alternate basis for rendering summary judgment or the plaintiffs challenge thereto”), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 916 , 13 A.3d 1103 (2011), citing Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436 , 448 n.11, 897 A.2d 624 (“[bjecause we conclude that the court correctly determined that the defendant’s fraudulent conveyance claim was barred by the three year statute of limitations contained in Gene…
cited Cited "see" Carter v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Carter, 122 Conn. App. 527, 529-30 , 998 A.2d 1217 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 915 , 13 A.3d 1104 (2011).
discussed Cited "see" Cottrell v. Cottrell (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Reizfeld v. Reizfeld, 125 Conn. App. 782, 796-98 , 40 A.3d 320 , cert. denied, 300 Conn. 915 , 13 A.3d 1103 (2011).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alvarez v. Middletown
Conn. App. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., James v. Valley-Shore Y.M.C.A, Inc., 125 Conn. App. 174 , 176 n.1, 6 A.3d 1199 (2010) (‘‘[i]n light of our conclusion that summary judgment was appropriate on that ground, we do not address the court’s alternate basis for rendering summary judgment or the plaintiff’s challenge thereto’’), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 916 , 13 A.3d 1103 (2011), citing Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436 , 448 n.11, 897 A.2d 624 (‘‘[b]ecause we conclude that the court correctly determined that the defendant’s fraudulent conveyance claim was barred by the three year statute of limitation…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bisson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., *716 James v. Valley-Shore Y.M.C.A., Inc. , 125 Conn. App. 174 , 183, 6 A.3d 1199 (2010) (no evidence that allegedly defective condition existed for such length of time that defendant's employees should have discovered it in exercise of due care and remedied it and, therefore, defendant entitled to summary judgment), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 916 , 13 A.3d 1103 (2011).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fox v. Fox (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
When the latter is true, § 46b-215a-3 (b) (1) (B) allows deviation from the guidelines on the basis of a parent’s earning capacity.’’ Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350, 371 , 710 A.2d 717 (1998); see also Reizfeld v. Reizfeld, 125 Conn. App. 782 , 794–95, 40 A.3d 320 (‘‘the defendant’s argument that the court improperly deviated from the child support guidelines by using the plaintiff’s actual gross income is misguided, as the deviation would instead be in using the plaintiff’s earning capacity’’), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 915 , 13 A.3d 1103 (2011); A. Rutkin et al., 8 C…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Celin G. Reizfeld
v.
Leonard C. Reizfeld
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 23, 2011.
13 A.3d 1103
Kenneth A. Votre, in support of the petition., Leonard C. Reizfeld, pro se, in opposition.
McLACHLAN.
Published

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 125 Conn. App. 782 (AC 31075), is denied.

[*916] Kenneth A. Votre, in support of the petition. Leonard C. Reizfeld, pro se, in opposition. Decided February 23, 2011 McLACHLAN, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.