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.
12 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Andover LP I v. Board of Tax Review
green
2 sentences2014Partnership I v. Board of Tax Review, [ 232 Conn. 392, 397 , 655 A.2d 759 (1995)], reiterated the test for determining whether a defect is circumstantial under § 52-123. 2014Partnership I v. Board of Tax Review, [ 232 Conn. 392, 397 , 655 A.2d 759 (1995)], reiterated the test for determining whether a defect is circumstantial under § 52-123. | 8 | 1999–2014 |
Pack v. Burns
green
2 sentences2005Pack v. Burns, supra, [at] 385 [ 562 A.2d 24 ]. 2001The trial court granted the plaintiff's Motion to Amend the appeal papers finding that these facts met the requirements of a circumstantial defect under General Statutes § 52-123 , the three factors of Pack v. Burns, 212 Conn. 381 (1989) and Andover Ltd. | 2 | 2001–2005 |
Rogozinski v. American Food Service Equipment Corp.
green
2 sentences1996We do not agree." Rogozinski v. American Food Service Equipment Corporation, 211 Conn. 431 , 433 (1989). 1996We do not agree." Rogozinski v. American Food Service Equipment Corporation, 211 Conn. 431 , 433 (1989). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Gillespie
green
2 sentences2011First, the court looked to whether the party intended to reference the proper party or whether it ‘had erroneously misdirected its action.’ . . . ‘Second, *234 [the court] considered three factors to determine whether the error was a misnomer and therefore a circumstantial defect under § 52-123: (1) whether the proper defendant had actual notice of the institution of the action; (2) whether the proper defendant knew or should have known that [he] was the intended defendant in the action; and (3) whether the proper defendant was in any way misled to [his] prejudice.’ ” State v. Gillespie, 92 Co 2011First, the court looked to whether the party intended to reference the proper party or whether it ‘had erroneously misdirected its action.’ . . . ‘Second, *234 [the court] considered three factors to determine whether the error was a misnomer and therefore a circumstantial defect under § 52-123: (1) whether the proper defendant had actual notice of the institution of the action; (2) whether the proper defendant knew or should have known that [he] was the intended defendant in the action; and (3) whether the proper defendant was in any way misled to [his] prejudice.’ ” State v. Gillespie, 92 Co | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Village Creek Homeowners Assn. v. Public Utilities Commission
green
2 sentences1991The court noted that "a summons is part of a citation. `The citation. . .is a command to a duly authorized officer to summon [the defendant]. . .to appear in court on a specific day to answer the [complaint]." Hillman v. Greenwich, 217 Conn. at 520 , citing Village Creek Homeowners Association v. Public Utilities Commission, 148 Conn. 336 , 338-9 , 170 A.2d 732 (1961). 1991The court noted that "a summons is part of a citation. `The citation. . .is a command to a duly authorized officer to summon [the defendant]. . .to appear in court on a specific day to answer the [complaint]." Hillman v. Greenwich, 217 Conn. at 520 , citing Village Creek Homeowners Association v. Public Utilities Commission, 148 Conn. 336 , 338-9 , 170 A.2d 732 (1961). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hillman v. Town of Greenwich
green
2 sentences1991The court noted that "a summons is part of a citation. `The citation. . .is a command to a duly authorized officer to summon [the defendant]. . .to appear in court on a specific day to answer the [complaint]." Hillman v. Greenwich, 217 Conn. at 520 , citing Village Creek Homeowners Association v. Public Utilities Commission, 148 Conn. 336 , 338-9 , 170 A.2d 732 (1961). 1991The plaintiff urges that the deficiencies of her summons be overlooked as circumstantial pursuant to section 52-123 C.G.S., which provides that "[n]o writ, pleading, judgment or any kind of proceeding in court or course of justice shall be abated, suspended, set aside or reversed for any kind of circumstantial errors, mistakes or defects, if the person and the cause may be rightly understood and intended by the court." In Hillman v. Greenwich, 217 Conn. 520 , 524-526 (1991), the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that failure to include a writ of summons that included the information required by | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.