green
Positive treatment
7.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Hudson City Savings Bank v. Hellman
See State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233 , 249–50, 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Calderon
See State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 249 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Burton
See State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 255 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Holland v. State
(2×)
See Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 655 (Miss. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S.Ct. 1455 , 79 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Williams v. State
See Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 654 (Miss. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S.Ct. 1455 , 79 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Ricketts
See State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 255 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gateway Co. v. DiNoia
LaPlante, supra, § 11.5.1, p. 331; see State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 249-54 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Monar
See State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 241 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Boyd
LaPlante, Connecticut Evidence (2d Ed.) § 11.25, p. 414; see State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 249-50 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Alvin Hill, Cross-Appellant v. Lee Roy Black, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Cross-Appellees
See Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 655 (Miss.1983), ce rt. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S.Ct. 1455 , 79 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984) ("We have repeatedly held that the competency, relevancy and materiality of photographs are solely within the discretion of the trial judge who will determine their evidentiary purpose and value.”)
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Ruscoe
State v. Morrill, supra, 571 ; see State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 239 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Kelly
While the evidence in this case was substantially circumstantial, it was nonetheless sufficient, if believed by the jury, to support a verdict of guilty of larceny in the second degree as charged. “[T]here is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence so far as probative force is concerned.” State v. Haddad, supra, 390 . “ ‘In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence this court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict; State v. Ferrell, 191 Conn. 37, 46 , 463 A.2d 573 (1983); and then determine whether the jury “could have…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Morrill
See State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 239 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Vinal
See State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 249 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. DiStefano
See State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 255 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brown
“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence this court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict; State v. Ferrell, 191 Conn. 37, 46 , 463 A.2d 573 (1983); and then determine whether the jury ‘could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence was sufficent to justify the verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ State v. Jackson, 176 Conn. 257, 262 , 407 A.2d 948 (1978); see State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 255 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denie…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cimino
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence this court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict; State v. Ferrell, 191 Conn. 37, 46 , 463 A.2d 573 (1983); and then determine whether the jury “could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jackson, 176 Conn. 257, 262 , 407 A.2d 948 (1978); see State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 255 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied,…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sayles
See, e.g., State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 239 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sayles
See, e.g., State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 239 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. John F.M.
Moreover, “[t]here is no requirement that the statement of a party necessarily be against the party’s interest either when made or offered in order to be admissible.” State v. Rosado, 218 Conn. 239, 251 , 588 A.2d 1066 (1991); see also State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 251 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ankerman
Leaving aside whether, as claimed by the state, that rule does not apply in a criminal trial, 10 the letter clearly was an admission of liability by a party, the defendant. “[Statements made out of court by a party-opponent are universally deemed admissible when offered against him; 4 Wigmore, Evidence (Chadboum Rev. 1972) § 1048, p. 2; so long as they are relevant and material to issues in the case. . . . [T]he vast weight of authority, judicial, legislative, and scholarly, supports the admissibility without restriction of any statement of a party offered against that party at trial.” (C…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
New England Savings Bank v. Bedford Realty Corp.
The ‘residual,’ or ‘catch-all,’ exception to the hearsay rule allows a trial court to admit hearsay evidence not admissible under any of the established exceptions if: (1) there is ‘a reasonable necessity for the admission of the statement,’ and (2) the statement is ‘supported by the equivalent guarantees of reliability and trustworthiness essential to other evidence admitted under the traditional hearsay exceptions.’” State v. Oquendo, supra, 223 Conn. 664 ; see also State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 249-50 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kimbro v. State
See e.g., State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S.Ct. 1455 , 79 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984), reh. denied 466 U.S. 954 , 104 S.Ct. 2163 , 80 L.Ed.2d 547 (1984); State v. Allen, 622 S.W.2d 275 (Mo.App.1981); Com. v. Shirey, 333 Pa.Super. 85 , 481 A.2d 1314 (1980); People v. Benjamin R., 103 A.D.2d 663 , 481 N.Y.S.2d 827 (4 Dept.1984); State v. Swallow, 350 N.W.2d 606 (S.D.1984); State v. Nunn, 244 Kan. 207 , 768 P.2d 268 (1989); State v. Jones, 539 So.2d 535 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Siano
The test to be applied to any part of a charge is whether the charge, considered as a whole, presents the case to the jury so that no injustice will result.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Estep, 186 Conn. 648, 652 , 443 A.2d 483 (1982); see also State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 247 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Redente
See also State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 250-52 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Holloway
Cf. State v. Ghere, 201 Conn. 289 , 301 n.9, 513 A.2d 1226 (1986) (rejecting claim that impeachment of credibility of alibi witnesses implicates sixth amendment right to present defense); see also State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 246-49 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Erhardt
Hearsay statements which are not admissible under any of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule may nevertheless be admissible if “(1) . . . there was a reasonable necessity for the admission of the statements], and (2) . . . the statements] [were] supported by the equivalent guarantees of reliability and trustworthiness essential to other evidence admitted under the traditional hearsay exceptions.” State v. Sharpe, 195 Conn. 651, 664 , 491 A.2d 345 (1985); see also State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 249 , 464 A.2d 758 , cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ryerson
App. [1970]); Bolin v. State, 219 Tenn. 4 , 405 S.W.2d 768 [1966].’ ” State v. Bennett, 172 Conn. 324, 329-30 , 374 A.2d 247 (1977), quoting State v. Cari, 163 Conn. 174, 182 , 303 A.2d 7 (1972); see also State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 246-49 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arizona
v.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
v.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
No. 83-1140.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 5, 1984.
Consideration, Took.
Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.†