Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Dance Right, LLC
See Mitchell v. Silverstein, 67 Conn. App. 58 , 60 n.5, 787 A.2d 20 (2001) (‘‘[i]f an appellee wishes to change the judgment in any way, the party must file a cross appeal’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 931 , 793 A.2d 1085 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ginsberg & Ginsberg, LLC v. Alexandria Estates, LLC
Because this court is not an advocate for any party; see Nieves v. Cirmo, 67 Conn. App. 576 , 587 n.4, 787 A.2d 650 (“[t]he court is not an advocate and should not be placed in a position of making tactical decisions for the attorneys before it”), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 931 , 793 A.2d 1085 (2002); I would not look beyond the grounds properly relied on by Neubig, as well as the specific claim of error brought before this court.
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas T. Lonardo, P.C. v. Dichello
See Mitchell v. Silverstein, 67 Conn. App. 58 , 60 n.5, 787 A.2d 20 (2001) (“[i]f an appellee wishes to change the judgment in any way, the party must file a cross appeal” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 931 , 793 A.2d 1085 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Valentine v. LaBow
See Mitchell v. Silverstein, 67 Conn. App. 58 , 60 n.4, 787 A.2d 20 (2001) (“judgment of partition by sale is an appealable final judgment”), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 931 , 793 A.2d 1085 (2002). 7 Initially, we address the defendant’s argument that the court improperly determined that her special defenses and counterclaim were barred by the doctrine of laches.
discussed
Cited "see"
Neuhaus v. DeCholnoky
See Hernandez v. Cirmo, 67 Conn. App. 565, 572 , 787 A.2d 657 , cert. denied, 259 Conn. 931 , 793 A.2d 1084 (2002); Nieves v. Cirmo, 67 Conn. App. 576, 587 , 787 A.2d 650 , cert. denied, 259 Conn. 931 , 793 A.2d 1085 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Mitchell v. Silverstein, No. Cv 97 63909 S (Aug. 22, 2002)
See Mitchell v. Silverstein , 259 Conn. 931 , 793 A.2d 1085 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Martinelli v. Fusi
See id., 208-209 ; see also Nieves v. Cirmo, 67 Conn. App. 576, 587 , 787 A.2d 650 (“to expect a defendant physician to remedy a diagnosis in the absence of proof that he subsequently learned that his diagnosis was incorrect would render the repose part of the statute of limitations a nullity” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 931 , 793 A.2d 1085 (2002); Golden v. Johnson Memorial Hospital, Inc., 66 Conn. App. 518, 529 , 785 A.2d 234 (“to expect a pathology group to provide follow-up treatment or to instruct a patient on follow-up care after a negative diagnosi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zielinski v. Kotsoris
That result would be against the policy of limiting the liability of defendants to claims brought within a reasonable time.” Id., 530; see also Hernandez v. Cirmo, 67 Conn. *328 App. 565, 571-72, 787 A.2d 657 (no continuing duty or course of conduct when defendant surgeon was aware of scar tissue on plaintiffs fallopian tubes at time of surgery, but was not concerned at that time that condition would cause sterilization procedure to fail, “even if the plaintiff could have shown that such scarring should have caused such concern”), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 931 , 793 A.2d 1084 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DIANE NIEVES
v.
WILLIAM CIRMO
v.
WILLIAM CIRMO
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 6, 2002.
Neil Johnson, in support of the petition., Albert G. Danker, Jr., in opposition.
Published
The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 67 Conn. App. 576 (AC 21139), is denied.
PALMER, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.