green
Positive treatment
5.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Fisher
Ed. 2d 230 (1988); but see State v. Oliphant, 115 Conn. App. 542 , 548 n.5, 973 A.2d 147 (noting that “[Revocation of [probation] is not part of a criminal prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to [probation] revocations” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 912 , 978 A.2d 1113 (2009).
cited
Cited "see"
Rogan v. Rungee
See Burton v. Stamford, 115 Conn.App. 47 , 87, 971 A.2d 739 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 912 , 978 A.2d 1108 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jamison
Although the claim is reviewable, as the record is ade- quate for review and the claim is of constitutional mag- nitude; see State v. Boyd, 115 Conn. App. 556, 562 , 973 A.2d 138 (constitutionally axiomatic that jury be instructed on essential elements of crime charged), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 912 , 978 A.2d 1110 (2009); we are not persuaded that the instructions were inadequate and, therefore, we conclude that the claim fails under the third prong of Golding. ‘‘Our standard of review with regard to claims of instructional error is well established. [I]ndividual jury instructions should n…
discussed
Cited "see"
Mattie & O'Brien Contracting Co. v. Rizzo Construction Pool Co.
Practice Book § 10-60 (a) (1) permits oral amendments to the pleadings by order of a “judicial authority”; see Burton v. Stamford, 115 Conn. App. 47, 60 , 971 A.2d 739 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 912 , 978 A.2d 1108 (2009); but an attorney fact finder is not a “judicial authority” and, therefore, may not grant a motion to amend the pleadings.
cited
Cited "see"
Oliphant v. Warden, State Prison
See State v. Oliphant, 115 Conn. App. 542 , 973 A.2d 147 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 912 , 978 A.2d 1113 (2009).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Holloway
See State v. Boyd, 115 Conn. App. 556, 562 , 973 *816 A.2d 138, cert. denied, 293 Conn. 912 , 978 A.2d 1110 (2009); Practice Book § 42-16.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hassett v. Secor's Auto Center, Inc.
Rather, [t]he modern trend, which is followed in Connecticut, is to construe pleadings broadly and realistically, rather than narrowly and technically. . . . [T]he complaint must be read in its entirety in such a way as to give effect to the pleading with reference to the general theory upon which it proceeded, and do substantial justice between the parties.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); see also Burton v. Stamford, 115 Conn. App. 47 , 65–66, 971 A.2d 739 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 912 , 978 A.2d 1108 (2009). 5 Other cases cited by the plaintiff are similarly unavailing, as they…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Small v. Commissioner of Correction
See, e.g., Burton v. Stamford, 115 Conn. App. 47, 59-60 , 971 A.2d 739 (setting forth case law permitting oral amendment to pleadings in civil actions), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 912 , 978 A.2d 1108 (2009); Mitchell v. Warden, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Docket No. 00215 (October 29, 1991) (habeas court permitted petitioner to orally amend petition that had failed to include allegation that there had been no deliberate bypass of appeal).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GODFREY BURTON
v.
CITY OF STAMFORD
v.
CITY OF STAMFORD
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 9, 2009.
Kenneth B. Povodator, assistant corporation counsel, in support of the petition., William F. Gallagher, in opposition.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 115 Conn. App. 47 (AC 29468), is denied.
Kenneth B. Povodator, assistant corporation counsel, in support of the petition. William F. Gallagher, in opposition. Decided September 9, 2009