green
Positive treatment
6.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Demaio
See State v. Toth, 29 Conn. App. 843, 853 , 618 A.2d 536 (“[w]ere police unable to rely on information obtained from first time informants, they would be deprived of an important resource in their criminal investigations”), cert. denied, 225 Conn. 908 , 621 A.2d 291 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Bowden
In State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239 -40, our Supreme Court reformulated the test for reviewing unpreserved claims that was set forth in State v. Evans, supra, 165 Conn. 70 ; see State v. Velez, 30 Conn. App. 9, 20 , 618 A.2d 1362 , cert. denied, 225 Conn. 907 , 621 A.2d 289 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Evans v. Commissioner of Correction
See State v. Toth, 29 Conn. App. 843, 858-59 , 618 A.2d 536 , cert. denied, 225 Conn. 908 , 621 A.2d 291 (1993); State v. Stellato, 10 Conn. App. 447, 456-57 , 523 A.2d 1345 (1987); see also General Statutes § 53a-51.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Battista
See State v. Toth, 29 Conn. App. 843, 863 , A.2d (1992), cert. denied, 225 Conn. 908 , 621 A.2d 291 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Hamilton
(2×)
See State v. Griffin, supra, 339 Conn. 645–46. 14 See State v. DeFusco, 224 Conn. 627, 644 , 620 A.2d 746 (1993) (recogniz- ing that ‘‘corroboration would be a proper ground on which to base an inference of reliability’’); State v. Rodriguez, 223 Conn. 127, 137 , 613 A.2d 211 (1992) (statement in warrant affidavit that confidential informant saw defendant carrying revolver before shooting was entitled to reliability because it was corroborated); see also State v. Toth, 29 Conn. App. 843, 856 , 618 A.2d 536 (‘‘[a]lthough the confidential informant was not specifically shown to be …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Flores
Three of the most common factors used to evaluate the reliability of an informant’s tip are (1) corroboration of the information by police, (2) declara- tions against penal interest by the informant-declarant, and (3) the reputation and past criminal behavior of the suspect.’’ State v. Ferguson, 185 Conn. 104, 113 , 440 A.2d 841 (1981); see also State v. Toth, 29 Conn. App. 843 , 852–53, 618 A.2d 536 (first time informant not nec- essarily less reliable than previously tested informant where affidavit contains facts providing substantial basis for issuing judge to infer that informant�…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. CARMELO T.
(2×)
Taken together, Practice Book §§ 39-26 [1] and 39-27 [2] require that a defendant *700 shall be permitted to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere before sentencing on the basis of the court's failure to comply with Practice Book § 39-19. [3] The provisions of § 39-19 are "mandatory when challenged on direct appeal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Garigali, 20 Conn.App. 810, 811 , 567 A.2d 851 (1989); State v. Loyd, 8 Conn.App. 491 , 494B, 540 A.2d 1058 (1986), cert. denied, 203 Conn. 801 , 522 A.2d 293 (1987); see also State v. Velez, 30 Conn.App. 9, 21-22 , 618 A.2d …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Radicioni
Where the circumstances for finding probable cause are detailed, where a substantial basis for crediting the source of information is apparent, and when a magistrate has in fact found probable cause, the reviewing court should not invalidate the warrant by application of rigid analytical categories.” Id., 544-45 ; see also State v. Toth, 29 Conn. App. 843 , 618 A.2d 536 , cert. denied, 225 Conn. 908 , 621 A.2d 291 (1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kathleen B. Borkowski
v.
John J. Borkowski
v.
John J. Borkowski
SC 14705.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 24, 1993.
Wesley W. Horton and Alexandra Davis, in support of the petition., Averum J. Sprecher, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 29 Conn. App. 925’ (AC 10882), is granted, limited to the following issue:
[*909] Decided February 24, 1993 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14705. Wesley W. Horton and Alexandra Davis, in support of the petition. Averum J. Sprecher, in opposition.“When a party files a motion to modify which seeks termination of alimony after a prior modification of alimony, may the trial court consider any change of circumstances arising since the date of the original decree?”