Mitchell v. Silverstein, 793 A.2d 1085 (Conn. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Mitchell v. Silverstein, 793 A.2d 1085 (Conn. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Dance Right, LLC (connappct, 2025-01-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Dance Right, LLC
Conn. App. Ct. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
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
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
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
Conn. App. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
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
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
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.
cited Cited "see" Mitchell v. Silverstein, No. Cv 97 63909 S (Aug. 22, 2002)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mitchell v. Silverstein , 259 Conn. 931 , 793 A.2d 1085 (2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Martinelli v. Fusi
Conn. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
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…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DOROTHY S. MITCHELL
v.
MORRIS SILVERSTEIN
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 6, 2002.
793 A.2d 1085
Morris Silverstein, pro se, in support of the petition., David C. Rappe, pro se, in opposition.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 67 Conn. App. 58 (AC 21180), is denied.

Morris Silverstein, pro se, in support of the petition. David C. Rappe, pro se, in opposition. Decided March 6, 2002

ZARELLA, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.