State v. Petrucelli, 852 A.2d 742 (Conn. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Petrucelli, 852 A.2d 742 (Conn. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hummel v. Marten Transports, Ltd. (conn, 2007-05-22) · Strongest negative: Torres v. Commissioner of Correction (connappct, 2004-07-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Torres v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2004 · signal: but see · confidence high
See Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction, 39 Conn. App. 674, 682 , 667 A.2d 304 (1995); but see Hickey v. Commissioner of Correction, 82 Conn. App. 25 , 28 n.3, 842 A.2d 606 , cert. granted on other grounds, 269 Conn. 913 , 852 A.2d 742 (2004).
discussed Cited "see" Hummel v. Marten Transports, Ltd. (2×)
Conn. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hunt v. Naugatuck, 269 Conn. 916 , 852 A.2d 742 (2004).
discussed Cited "see" Collard and Roe, PC v. Klein
Conn. App. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Feen v. New England Benefit Cos., 81 Conn. App. 772, 777 , 841 A.2d 1193 (“ ‘[i]t is a well established principle that arguments cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief ”), cert, denied, 269 Conn. 910 , 852 A.2d 739 (2004). 4 Our conclusion that Arthur Klein’s requests for a jury trial in both the fraudulent conveyance action and the interpleader action were untimely under General Statutes § 52-215 should not be interpreted to mean that fraudulent conveyance and interpleader actions are not equitable actions within the terms of General Statutes § 52-215.
cited Cited "see" State v. Perez
Conn. App. Ct. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Daley, 81 Conn. App. 641, 645 , 841 A.2d 243 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 910 , 852 A.2d 740 (2004); State v. Webb, 62 Conn. App. 805, 811 , 772 A.2d 690 (2001).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Stephen G.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
“Our authority, when reviewing the findings of a judge, is *698 circumscribed by the deference we must give to decisions of the trier of fact, who is usually in a superior position to appraise and weigh the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) LaVelle v. Ecoair Corp., 74 Conn. App. 710, 716 , 814 A.2d 421 (2003); see also Feen v. New England Benefit Cos., 81 Conn. App. 772, 780 , 841 A.2d 1193 (noting trial court’s “superior position to evaluate those factors as they coalesce at trial and the disparate ability of a reviewing court to glean such things from the written record�…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
DOROTHY PETRUCELLI STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ARTHUR J. PETRUCELLI, JR.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 2, 2004.
852 A.2d 742
Jeffrey D. Brownstein, in support of the petition., Eileen F. McCarthy, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 81 Conn. App. 903 (AC 23528/ AC 23529), is denied.