Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2020See State v. Walker, 319 Conn. 668 , 678, 126 A.3d 1087 (2015). 2020See State v. Walker, 319 Conn. 668 , 678, 126 A.3d 1087 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Swanson v. City of Grotongreen2 sentences2020See also Swanson v. Groton, 116 Conn. App. 849, 865 , 977 A.2d 738 (2009) (‘‘If the trial judge denies the motion for articulation, the appellant has a remedy by way of motion for review, which may be filed with this court pursuant to Practice Book § 66-7.14 This motion for review specifically can be utilized only for those motions for articulation filed pursuant to § 66-5.’’ (Footnote added.)). 2020See also Swanson v. Groton, 116 Conn. App. 849, 865 , 977 A.2d 738 (2009) (‘‘If the trial judge denies the motion for articulation, the appellant has a remedy by way of motion for review, which may be filed with this court pursuant to Practice Book § 66-7.14 This motion for review specifically can be utilized only for those motions for articulation filed pursuant to § 66-5.’’ (Footnote added.)). | 1 | 1 |
Awdziewicz v. Meridengreen2 sentences2019See Awdziewicz v. Meriden, 317 Conn. 122 , 125 n.3, 115 A.3d 1084 (2015) (‘‘[when] an issue is merely mentioned, but not briefed beyond a bare assertion of the claim, it is deemed to have been waived’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Harris v. Bradley Memorial Hospital & Health Center, Inc., 306 Conn. 304 , 319, 50 A.3d 841 (2012) (‘‘[a]n appellant who fails to brief a claim abandons it’’ [emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 918 , 133 S. Ct. 1809 , 185 L. Ed. 2d 812 (2013). 7 Practice Book § 61-10 (b) provides in relevant part that ‘‘[t]he failure 2019See Awdziewicz v. Meriden, 317 Conn. 122 , 125 n.3, 115 A.3d 1084 (2015) (‘‘[when] an issue is merely mentioned, but not briefed beyond a bare assertion of the claim, it is deemed to have been waived’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Harris v. Bradley Memorial Hospital & Health Center, Inc., 306 Conn. 304 , 319, 50 A.3d 841 (2012) (‘‘[a]n appellant who fails to brief a claim abandons it’’ [emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 918 , 133 S. Ct. 1809 , 185 L. Ed. 2d 812 (2013). 7 Practice Book § 61-10 (b) provides in relevant part that ‘‘[t]he failure | 1 | 1 |
Henry v. Statewide Grievance Committeegreen2 sentences2011See Henry v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 111 Conn. App. 12, 28 , 957 A.2d 547 (2008). 11 In his motion for articulation, the plaintiff requested, in relevant part, that the board articulate the following: (1) whether it found that the commissioner *726 “applied the ‘right to control’ analysis and, if so, what part or parts of the . . . [c]ommissioner’s ruling supports that finding” and (2) “[i]/the . . . ‘right to control test’ was applied . . . what facts found by the . . . [c]om-missioner squarely address [the plaintiffs] credibility with respect to that legal standard.” (Emphasis in orig 2011See Henry v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 111 Conn. App. 12, 28 , 957 A.2d 547 (2008). 11 In his motion for articulation, the plaintiff requested, in relevant part, that the board articulate the following: (1) whether it found that the commissioner *726 “applied the ‘right to control’ analysis and, if so, what part or parts of the . . . [c]ommissioner’s ruling supports that finding” and (2) “[i]/the . . . ‘right to control test’ was applied . . . what facts found by the . . . [c]om-missioner squarely address [the plaintiffs] credibility with respect to that legal standard.” (Emphasis in orig | 1 | 1 |
Rivnak v. Rivnakgreen2 sentences2010“Practice Book § 66-7 provides in relevant part: Any party aggrieved by the action of the trial judge as regards . . . articulation under Section 66-5 may, within ten days of the issuance of notice of the order sought to be reviewed, make a written motion for review to the court, to be filed with the appellate clerk, and the court may, upon such a motion, direct any action it deems proper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McCook v. Whitebirch Construction, LLC, 117 Conn. App. 320, 332 , 978 A.2d 1150 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 932 , 987 A.2d 1029 (2009); see also Rivnak v. Rivnak, 99 Conn. 2010“Practice Book § 66-7 provides in relevant part: Any party aggrieved by the action of the trial judge as regards . . . articulation under Section 66-5 may, within ten days of the issuance of notice of the order sought to be reviewed, make a written motion for review to the court, to be filed with the appellate clerk, and the court may, upon such a motion, direct any action it deems proper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McCook v. Whitebirch Construction, LLC, 117 Conn. App. 320, 332 , 978 A.2d 1150 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 932 , 987 A.2d 1029 (2009); see also Rivnak v. Rivnak, 99 Conn. | 1 | 1 |
Ramondetta v. Amentagreen2 sentences2009See Ramondetta v. Amenta, 97 Conn. App. 151, 168 , 903 A.2d 232 (2006); Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc., 49 Conn. App. 152, 180 , 714 A.2d 21 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 905 , 720 A.2d 516 (1998). 2009See Ramondetta v. Amenta, 97 Conn. App. 151, 168 , 903 A.2d 232 (2006); Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc., 49 Conn. App. 152, 180 , 714 A.2d 21 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 905 , 720 A.2d 516 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
King v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., King v. Commissioner of Correction, 73 Conn. App. 600, 603 , 808 A.2d 1166 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 133 (2003). 4 In her return, the respondent did not raise the affirmative defense of procedural default. 5 General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when, in the course of the commission of the crime of robbery as defined in section 53a-133 or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime ... (2) is armed with a deadly weapon . . . 2008See, e.g., King v. Commissioner of Correction, 73 Conn. App. 600, 603 , 808 A.2d 1166 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 133 (2003). 4 In her return, the respondent did not raise the affirmative defense of procedural default. 5 General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when, in the course of the commission of the crime of robbery as defined in section 53a-133 or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime ... (2) is armed with a deadly weapon . . . | 1 | 1 |
King v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., King v. Commissioner of Correction, 73 Conn. App. 600, 603 , 808 A.2d 1166 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 133 (2003). 4 In her return, the respondent did not raise the affirmative defense of procedural default. 5 General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when, in the course of the commission of the crime of robbery as defined in section 53a-133 or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime ... (2) is armed with a deadly weapon . . . 2008See, e.g., King v. Commissioner of Correction, 73 Conn. App. 600, 603 , 808 A.2d 1166 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 133 (2003). 4 In her return, the respondent did not raise the affirmative defense of procedural default. 5 General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when, in the course of the commission of the crime of robbery as defined in section 53a-133 or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime ... (2) is armed with a deadly weapon . . . | 1 | 1 |
Bowden v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen2 sentences2006We do not consider the latter claim because the habeas court did not address it, and the petitioner did not seek an articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5; see Bowden v. Commissioner, supra, 93 Conn.App. at 342 , 888 A.2d 1131 . 2006We do not consider the latter claim because the habeas court did not address it, and the petitioner did not seek an articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5; see Bowden v. Commissioner, supra, 93 Conn.App. at 342 , 888 A.2d 1131 . | 1 | 1 |
Reader v. Cassarinogreen1 sentence2001Moreover, the defendant failed to avail himself of the procedural vehicles that might have remedied this deficiency in the record; see id., 296 ; because he did not request a further articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5 1 and did not file a motion for review of the trial court’s articulation. 2 Id. | 1 | 1 |
Bank of Boston Connecticut v. Schlesingergreen2 sentences2000See Bank of Boston Connecticut v. Schlesinger, 220 Conn. 152 , 154 n.2, 595 A.2d 872 (1991). 2000See Bank of Boston Connecticut v. Schlesinger, 220 Conn. 152 , 154 n.2, 595 A.2d 872 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brycki v. Brycki
green
2 sentences2020The defendants principally rely on this court’s decision in Brycki v. Brycki, 91 Conn. App. 579, 594 , 881 A.2d 1056 (2005), for the proposition that we should decline to review the plaintiff’s claim because, after filing this appeal, he failed to file a motion for articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5,13 specifically requesting that the trial court address the mitigation of damages issue, the denial of which would have been subject to appellate review upon the filing of a motion for review pursuant to Practice Book § 66-7. 2020The defendants principally rely on this court’s decision in Brycki v. Brycki, 91 Conn. App. 579, 594 , 881 A.2d 1056 (2005), for the proposition that we should decline to review the plaintiff’s claim because, after filing this appeal, he failed to file a motion for articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5,13 specifically requesting that the trial court address the mitigation of damages issue, the denial of which would have been subject to appellate review upon the filing of a motion for review pursuant to Practice Book § 66-7. | 2 | 2010–2020 |
Roberto A. v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2025The petitioner did not request an articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5 and has not pointed to anything in the court’s decision, nor have we found anything, to suggest that the court applied an improper standard. ‘‘In the absence of any evidence that the court engaged in an improper legal analysis, we presume that the court knew the law and applied it correctly.’’ Roberto A. v. Commissioner of Correction, 12 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Vivo v. Commissioner of Correction 229 Conn. App. 104, 118 , 325 A.3d 1192 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 935 , 327 A.3d 384 (2024). 2025The petitioner did not request an articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5 and has not pointed to anything in the court’s decision, nor have we found anything, to suggest that the court applied an improper standard. ‘‘In the absence of any evidence that the court engaged in an improper legal analysis, we presume that the court knew the law and applied it correctly.’’ Roberto A. v. Commissioner of Correction, 12 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Vivo v. Commissioner of Correction 229 Conn. App. 104, 118 , 325 A.3d 1192 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 935 , 327 A.3d 384 (2024). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
McCook v. Whitebirch Construction, LLC
green
2 sentences2010“Practice Book § 66-7 provides in relevant part: Any party aggrieved by the action of the trial judge as regards . . . articulation under Section 66-5 may, within ten days of the issuance of notice of the order sought to be reviewed, make a written motion for review to the court, to be filed with the appellate clerk, and the court may, upon such a motion, direct any action it deems proper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McCook v. Whitebirch Construction, LLC, 117 Conn. App. 320, 332 , 978 A.2d 1150 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 932 , 987 A.2d 1029 (2009); see also Rivnak v. Rivnak, 99 Conn. 2010“Practice Book § 66-7 provides in relevant part: Any party aggrieved by the action of the trial judge as regards . . . articulation under Section 66-5 may, within ten days of the issuance of notice of the order sought to be reviewed, make a written motion for review to the court, to be filed with the appellate clerk, and the court may, upon such a motion, direct any action it deems proper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McCook v. Whitebirch Construction, LLC, 117 Conn. App. 320, 332 , 978 A.2d 1150 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 932 , 987 A.2d 1029 (2009); see also Rivnak v. Rivnak, 99 Conn. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
McCook v. WHITEBIRCH CONSTRUCTION, LLC
green
2 sentences2010“Practice Book § 66-7 provides in relevant part: Any party aggrieved by the action of the trial judge as regards . . . articulation under Section 66-5 may, within ten days of the issuance of notice of the order sought to be reviewed, make a written motion for review to the court, to be filed with the appellate clerk, and the court may, upon such a motion, direct any action it deems proper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McCook v. Whitebirch Construction, LLC, 117 Conn. App. 320, 332 , 978 A.2d 1150 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 932 , 987 A.2d 1029 (2009); see also Rivnak v. Rivnak, 99 Conn. 2010“Practice Book § 66-7 provides in relevant part: Any party aggrieved by the action of the trial judge as regards . . . articulation under Section 66-5 may, within ten days of the issuance of notice of the order sought to be reviewed, make a written motion for review to the court, to be filed with the appellate clerk, and the court may, upon such a motion, direct any action it deems proper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McCook v. Whitebirch Construction, LLC, 117 Conn. App. 320, 332 , 978 A.2d 1150 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 932 , 987 A.2d 1029 (2009); see also Rivnak v. Rivnak, 99 Conn. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009See Ramondetta v. Amenta, 97 Conn. App. 151, 168 , 903 A.2d 232 (2006); Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc., 49 Conn. App. 152, 180 , 714 A.2d 21 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 905 , 720 A.2d 516 (1998). 2009See Ramondetta v. Amenta, 97 Conn. App. 151, 168 , 903 A.2d 232 (2006); Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc., 49 Conn. App. 152, 180 , 714 A.2d 21 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 905 , 720 A.2d 516 (1998). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Connecticut National Bank v. Giacomi
green
2 sentences2009If the plaintiffs wanted the court to address this issue, they could have sought an articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5. “[I]t is the appellant’s responsibility to provide an adequate record for review.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut National Bank v. Giacomi, 242 Conn. 17, 74 , 699 A.2d 101 (1997). 2009If the plaintiffs wanted the court to address this issue, they could have sought an articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5. “[I]t is the appellant’s responsibility to provide an adequate record for review.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut National Bank v. Giacomi, 242 Conn. 17, 74 , 699 A.2d 101 (1997). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009See Ramondetta v. Amenta, 97 Conn. App. 151, 168 , 903 A.2d 232 (2006); Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc., 49 Conn. App. 152, 180 , 714 A.2d 21 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 905 , 720 A.2d 516 (1998). 2009See Ramondetta v. Amenta, 97 Conn. App. 151, 168 , 903 A.2d 232 (2006); Wellington Systems, Inc. v. Redding Group, Inc., 49 Conn. App. 152, 180 , 714 A.2d 21 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 905 , 720 A.2d 516 (1998). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Berglass v. Berglass
green
2 sentences2009The plaintiff might have asked the court to explain its reasoning by filing a motion for articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5. “[W]e will, in the absence of a motion for articulation, assume that the trial court acted properly.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Berglass v. Ber-glass, 71 Conn. App. 771, 789 , 804 A.2d 889 (2002). 2009The plaintiff might have asked the court to explain its reasoning by filing a motion for articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5. “[W]e will, in the absence of a motion for articulation, assume that the trial court acted properly.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Berglass v. Ber-glass, 71 Conn. App. 771, 789 , 804 A.2d 889 (2002). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Williams v. Williams
green
2 sentences2007In assessing the *57 court’s modification of the plaintiffs alimony obligation, we must “allow every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Williams v. Williams, 276 Conn. 491, 497 , 886 A.2d 817 (2005). 2007In assessing the *57 court’s modification of the plaintiffs alimony obligation, we must “allow every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Williams v. Williams, 276 Conn. 491, 497 , 886 A.2d 817 (2005). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mazzola v. Southern New England Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences2005Cheryl Terry Enterprises, Ltd. v. Hartford, 270 Conn. 619, 628 , 854 A.2d 1066 (2004), citing Mazzola v. Southern New England Telephone Co., supra, 169 Conn. at 355 , 363 A.2d 170 . [27] We note that further explication on this point by the trial court would have greatly aided our review of the market definition issue, and that the better practice would have been for the plaintiffs, who as the appellants bear responsibility for providing an adequate record for review, to move for an articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5. 2005Cheryl Terry Enterprises, Ltd. v. Hartford, 270 Conn. 619, 628 , 854 A.2d 1066 (2004), citing Mazzola v. Southern New England Telephone Co., supra, 169 Conn. at 355 , 363 A.2d 170 . [27] We note that further explication on this point by the trial court would have greatly aided our review of the market definition issue, and that the better practice would have been for the plaintiffs, who as the appellants bear responsibility for providing an adequate record for review, to move for an articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Putnoki
green
2 sentences2005The court denied the motion for articulation, citing in part State v. Putnoki, 200 Conn. 208, 221 , 510 A.2d 1329 (1986). 9 General Statutes § 17a-580 provides in relevant part: “(10) ‘Person who should be confined’ means an acquittee who has psychiatric disabilities or is mentally retarded to the extent that his discharge or conditional release would constitute a danger to himself or others and who cannot be adequately controlled with available supervision and treatment on conditional release . . . .” 10 General Statutes § 17a-495 provides in relevant part: “(a) For the purposes of sections 1 2005The court denied the motion for articulation, citing in part State v. Putnoki, 200 Conn. 208, 221 , 510 A.2d 1329 (1986). 9 General Statutes § 17a-580 provides in relevant part: “(10) ‘Person who should be confined’ means an acquittee who has psychiatric disabilities or is mentally retarded to the extent that his discharge or conditional release would constitute a danger to himself or others and who cannot be adequately controlled with available supervision and treatment on conditional release . . . .” 10 General Statutes § 17a-495 provides in relevant part: “(a) For the purposes of sections 1 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Cheryl Terry Enterprises, Ltd. v. City of Hartford
green
2 sentences2005Cheryl Terry Enterprises, Ltd. v. Hartford, 270 Conn. 619, 628 , 854 A.2d 1066 (2004), citing Mazzola v. Southern New England Telephone Co., supra, 169 Conn. at 355 , 363 A.2d 170 . [27] We note that further explication on this point by the trial court would have greatly aided our review of the market definition issue, and that the better practice would have been for the plaintiffs, who as the appellants bear responsibility for providing an adequate record for review, to move for an articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5. 2005Cheryl Terry Enterprises, Ltd. v. Hartford, 270 Conn. 619, 628 , 854 A.2d 1066 (2004), citing Mazzola v. Southern New England Telephone Co., supra, 169 Conn. at 355 , 363 A.2d 170 . [27] We note that further explication on this point by the trial court would have greatly aided our review of the market definition issue, and that the better practice would have been for the plaintiffs, who as the appellants bear responsibility for providing an adequate record for review, to move for an articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Pitchell v. City of Hartford
neutral
2 sentences2003The failure of a plaintiff to follow that procedure was addressed squarely in Pitchell v. Hartford, 46 Conn. App. 799, 803 , 700 A.2d 1386 (1997), rev’d on other grounds, 247 Conn. 422 , 722 A.2d 797 (1999). 2003The failure of a plaintiff to follow that procedure was addressed squarely in Pitchell v. Hartford, 46 Conn. App. 799, 803 , 700 A.2d 1386 (1997), rev’d on other grounds, 247 Conn. 422 , 722 A.2d 797 (1999). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Pitchell v. City of Hartford
green
2 sentences2003The failure of a plaintiff to follow that procedure was addressed squarely in Pitchell v. Hartford, 46 Conn. App. 799, 803 , 700 A.2d 1386 (1997), rev’d on other grounds, 247 Conn. 422 , 722 A.2d 797 (1999). 2003The failure of a plaintiff to follow that procedure was addressed squarely in Pitchell v. Hartford, 46 Conn. App. 799, 803 , 700 A.2d 1386 (1997), rev’d on other grounds, 247 Conn. 422 , 722 A.2d 797 (1999). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.