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.
29 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Frank W. Winstongreen2 sentences1992United States v. Winston, 447 F.2d 1236, 1240-41 (D.C. 1986United States v. Winston, 447 F.2d 1236, 1240-41 (D.C. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Graham
green
2 sentences2015Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.’’ (Citations omitted.) State v. Graham, 200 Conn. 9, 13 , 509 A.2d 493 (1986). 2015Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.’’ (Citations omitted.) State v. Graham, 200 Conn. 9, 13 , 509 A.2d 493 (1986). | 10 | 1987–2015 |
State v. Paulino
green
2 sentences2002“Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Paulino, 223 Conn. 461, 467 , 613 A.2d 720 (1992). 2002“Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Paulino, 223 Conn. 461, 467 , 613 A.2d 720 (1992). | 4 | 1996–2002 |
State v. Pulley
green
2 sentences2013Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pulley, 46 Conn. App. 414, 421-22 , 699 A.2d 1042 (1997). 2013Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pulley, 46 Conn. App. 414, 421-22 , 699 A.2d 1042 (1997). | 2 | 1999–2013 |
State v. Colon
green
2 sentences2006Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other-grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106,186-87 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L. 2006Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other-grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106,186-87 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L. | 2 | 2005–2006 |
State v. Powell
green
2 sentences2006Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 599 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006). 2006Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 599 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Powell
green
2 sentences2006Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 599 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006). 2006Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 599 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Mark T.
green
1 sentence2023The party who initiates discussion on the issue is said to have opened the door to rebuttal by the opposing party.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mark T., 339 Conn. 225 , 236, 260 A.3d 402 (2021). ‘‘Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it [when] the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own adv | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Mark T.
green
1 sentence2023The party who initiates discussion on the issue is said to have opened the door to rebuttal by the opposing party.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mark T., 339 Conn. 225 , 236, 260 A.3d 402 (2021). ‘‘Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it [when] the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own adv | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Payne
green
2 sentences2018Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it [when] the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.... [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Payne , 303 Conn. 538 , 557, 34 A.3d 370 (2012). 2018Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it [when] the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.... [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Payne , 303 Conn. 538 , 557, 34 A.3d 370 (2012). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2014The trial court must carefully con- sider whether the circumstances of the case warrant further inquiry into the subject matter, and should per- mit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Thornton v. California
green
1 sentence2012Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it [when] the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Victor O., 301 Conn. 163, 189 , 20 A.3d 669 , cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 583 , | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Victor O. v. Connecticut
green
1 sentence2012Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it [when] the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Victor O., 301 Conn. 163, 189 , 20 A.3d 669 , cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 583 , | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. VICTOR O.
green
2 sentences2012Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it [when] the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Victor O., 301 Conn. 163, 189 , 20 A.3d 669 , cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 583 , 2012Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it [when] the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Victor O., 301 Conn. 163, 189 , 20 A.3d 669 , cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 583 , | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Raynor
green
2 sentences2011Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Raynor, 84 Conn. App. 749, 766 , 854 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 935 , 861 A.2d 511 (2004). 2011Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Raynor, 84 Conn. App. 749, 766 , 854 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 935 , 861 A.2d 511 (2004). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Raynor
green
2 sentences2011Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Raynor, 84 Conn. App. 749, 766 , 854 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 935 , 861 A.2d 511 (2004). 2011Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Raynor, 84 Conn. App. 749, 766 , 854 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 935 , 861 A.2d 511 (2004). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Carpenter
green
2 sentences2008Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing *321 the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 822 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 102 2008Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing *321 the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 822 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 102 | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ellis v. Emery
green
2 sentences2008Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing *321 the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 822 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 102 2008Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing *321 the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 822 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 102 | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Colon v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences2006Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other-grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106,186-87 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L. 2006Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other-grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106,186-87 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Miller-Bates v. Wachovia Bank
green
1 sentence2006Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other-grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106,186-87 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Greene
neutral
2 sentences2004Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Greene, 52 Conn. App. 617, 627 , 727 A.2d 765 , cert. denied, 248 Conn. 922 , 733 A. 2004Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Greene, 52 Conn. App. 617, 627 , 727 A.2d 765 , cert. denied, 248 Conn. 922 , 733 A. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Ceballos
red
2 sentences2004Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ceballos, 266 Conn. 364, 405 , 832 A.2d 14 (2003). 2004Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ceballos, 266 Conn. 364, 405 , 832 A.2d 14 (2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Greene
green
2 sentences2004Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Greene, 52 Conn. App. 617, 627 , 727 A.2d 765 , cert. denied, 248 Conn. 922 , 733 A. 2004Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence. . . . [T]his rule operates to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Greene, 52 Conn. App. 617, 627 , 727 A.2d 765 , cert. denied, 248 Conn. 922 , 733 A. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2000Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.’ State v. Graham, 200 Conn. 9, 13 , 509 A.2d 493 (1986).” State v. Williams, 220 Conn. 385, 393 , 599 A.2d 1053 (1991). 2000Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.’ State v. Graham, 200 Conn. 9, 13 , 509 A.2d 493 (1986).” State v. Williams, 220 Conn. 385, 393 , 599 A.2d 1053 (1991). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Daly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
1 sentence1996Even though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inadmissible on other grounds, the court may, in its discretion, allow it where the party initiating inquiry has made unfair use of the evidence.’ ” State v. Paulino, 223 Conn. 461, 467 , 631 A.2d 720 (1992). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.