Chimblo v. Hutter, 785 A.2d 228 (Conn. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Chimblo v. Hutter, 785 A.2d 228 (Conn. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pollard v. Bridgeport (connappct, 2021-04-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Pollard v. Bridgeport
Conn. App. Ct. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gambardella v. Kaoud, 38 Conn. App. 355, 359 , 660 A.2d 877 (1995).’’ Abramczyk v. Abbey, 64 Conn. App. 442, 446 , 780 A.2d 957 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 933 , 785 A.2d 229 (2001).
cited Cited "see" State v. Ellison
Conn. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Lisevick, 65 Conn. App. 493, 508 , 783 A.2d 73 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 933 , 785 A.2d 230 (2001).
cited Cited "see" State v. Samuels
Conn. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Lisevick, 65 Conn. App. 493, 508 , 783 A.2d 73 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 933 , 785 A.2d 230 (2001); State v. Orhan, 52 Conn. App. 231, 243 , 726 A.2d 629 (1999).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Vines
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
Rather than exercising our supervisory powers to mandate supervised playbacks of taped testimony in the future; see State v. Lisevick, 65 Conn. App. 493, 502 , 783 A.2d 73 (declining to exercise supervisory authority to require child interrogations to be videotaped where defendant pointed merely to possibility of taint and court found no evidence in record to support it), cert. denied, 258 Conn. 933 , 785 A.2d 230 (2001); we will review such occurrences in the future on a case-by-case basis.
cited Cited "see" State v. Jacobs
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Lisevick, 65 Conn. App. 493, 498-99 , 783 A.2d 73 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 933 , 785 A.2d 230 (2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
EUGENE CHIMBLO
v.
GERHARD HUTTER
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 16, 2001.
785 A.2d 228
Gerhard flutter, pro se, Nance ffutter, pro se, Maximilian flutter, pro se, and Rudolf flutter, pro se, in support of the petition.
Published

The petition for certification of the defendants, Ger-hard Hutter, Nance Hutter, Maximilian Hutter and Rudolph Hutter, for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 21858) is denied.