tools analysis in Connecticut

2018The fiscal impact statement for the 2015 amendment itself even contains a disclaimer, which provides, in relevant part: "The preceding Fiscal Impact statement is prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely for the purposes of information, summarization and explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose ." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the fiscal impact statement cannot be utilized as a fulcrum to lever the statute's plain meaning into ambiguity. 5 "In order to construe the contours of our state constitution

2018The fiscal impact statement for the 2015 amendment itself even contains a disclaimer, which provides, in relevant part: "The preceding Fiscal Impact statement is prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely for the purposes of information, summarization and explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose ." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the fiscal impact statement cannot be utilized as a fulcrum to lever the statute's plain meaning into ambiguity. 5 "In order to construe the contours of our state constitution

2007“As we concluded in Geisler , [i]n order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach ... (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Nash, 278 Conn. 620 , 623-24 n.4,

2007“As we concluded in Geisler , [i]n order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach ... (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Nash, 278 Conn. 620 , 623-24 n.4,

2018Our Supreme Court has noted, however, "that these factors may be inextricably interwoven, and not every [such] factor is relevant in all cases." State v. Kono , supra, 324 Conn. at 92 , 152 A.3d 1 .

2018Our Supreme Court has noted, however, "that these factors may be inextricably interwoven, and not every [such] factor is relevant in all cases." State v. Kono , supra, 324 Conn. at 92 , 152 A.3d 1 .

2018Our Supreme Court has noted, however, ‘‘that these factors may be inextricably inter- woven, and not every [such] factor is relevant in all cases.’’ State v. Kono, supra, 324 Conn. 92 . 16 Specifically, the court cited the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1367 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S. Ct. 67 , 88 L.

2018Our Supreme Court has noted, however, ‘‘that these factors may be inextricably inter- woven, and not every [such] factor is relevant in all cases.’’ State v. Kono, supra, 324 Conn. 92 . 16 Specifically, the court cited the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1367 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S. Ct. 67 , 88 L.

2018Our Supreme Court has noted, however, ‘‘that these factors may be inextricably inter- woven, and not every [such] factor is relevant in all cases.’’ State v. Kono, supra, 324 Conn. 92 . 16 Specifically, the court cited the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1367 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 , 106 S. Ct. 67 , 88 L.

2010In determining the scope of the rights secured by our state constitution, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the [text of the constitutional provision]... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions ... (5) the [history of the constitutional provision] ... including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers ... and (6) economic/sociological considerations." [3] (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280, 305-306 , 929 A.2d 278 (20

2010In determining the scope of the rights secured by our state constitution, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the [text of the constitutional provision]... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions ... (5) the [history of the constitutional provision] ... including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers ... and (6) economic/sociological considerations." [3] (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280, 305-306 , 929 A.2d 278 (20

2007State v. D'Antonio, 274 Conn. 658, 680-81 , 877 A.2d 696 (2005). 16 This court requires parties raising an independent state constitutional claim to present an analysis of that claim that uses “the following tools of analysis ... to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach ... (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

2007State v. D'Antonio, 274 Conn. 658, 680-81 , 877 A.2d 696 (2005). 16 This court requires parties raising an independent state constitutional claim to present an analysis of that claim that uses “the following tools of analysis ... to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach ... (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

2002As we concluded in Geisler , “[i]n order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach . . . (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.)

2002As we concluded in Geisler , “[i]n order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach . . . (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.)

2002As we concluded in Geisler , “[i]n order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach . . . (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.)

2002As we concluded in Geisler , “[i]n order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach . . . (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.)

2002As we concluded in Geisler , “[i]n order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach . . . (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.)

2002As we concluded in Geisler , “[i]n order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach . . . (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.)

2002As we concluded in Geisler , “[i]n order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach . . . (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.)

1996Moreover, the Connecticut Supreme Court has "held that the due process clauses of both the United States and Connecticut constitutions have the same meaning and impose similar limitations." State v. Cruz, 212 Conn. 351 , 364 , 562 A.2d 1071 (1989).

1996Moreover, the Connecticut Supreme Court has "held that the due process clauses of both the United States and Connecticut constitutions have the same meaning and impose similar limitations." State v. Cruz, 212 Conn. 351 , 364 , 562 A.2d 1071 (1989).

1996The defendant contends that a proper consideration of the Geisler factors should lead us to adopt, as a matter of state constitutional law, the prophylactic rule set forth in People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154 , 385 N.E.2d 612 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 874 (1978).

1996The defendant contends that a proper consideration of the Geisler factors should lead us to adopt, as a matter of state constitutional law, the prophylactic rule set forth in People v. Settles, 46 N.Y.2d 154 , 385 N.E.2d 612 , 412 N.Y.S.2d 874 (1978).

1992State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 112 , 547 A.2d 10 (1988); State v. Stoddard, 206 Conn. 157, 166 , 537 A.2d 446 (1988); State v. Kimbro, 197 Conn. 219, 235-36 , 496 A.2d 498 (1985).” In order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach; see, e.g., Stolberg v. Caldwell, 175 Conn. 586, 597-98 , 402 A.2d 763 (1978), appeal dismissed sub nom.

1992State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 112 , 547 A.2d 10 (1988); State v. Stoddard, 206 Conn. 157, 166 , 537 A.2d 446 (1988); State v. Kimbro, 197 Conn. 219, 235-36 , 496 A.2d 498 (1985).” In order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach; see, e.g., Stolberg v. Caldwell, 175 Conn. 586, 597-98 , 402 A.2d 763 (1978), appeal dismissed sub nom.

1992State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 112 , 547 A.2d 10 (1988); State v. Stoddard, 206 Conn. 157, 166 , 537 A.2d 446 (1988); State v. Kimbro, 197 Conn. 219, 235-36 , 496 A.2d 498 (1985).” In order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach; see, e.g., Stolberg v. Caldwell, 175 Conn. 586, 597-98 , 402 A.2d 763 (1978), appeal dismissed sub nom.

1992State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 112 , 547 A.2d 10 (1988); State v. Stoddard, 206 Conn. 157, 166 , 537 A.2d 446 (1988); State v. Kimbro, 197 Conn. 219, 235-36 , 496 A.2d 498 (1985).” In order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach; see, e.g., Stolberg v. Caldwell, 175 Conn. 586, 597-98 , 402 A.2d 763 (1978), appeal dismissed sub nom.

1992State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 112 , 547 A.2d 10 (1988); State v. Stoddard, 206 Conn. 157, 166 , 537 A.2d 446 (1988); State v. Kimbro, 197 Conn. 219, 235-36 , 496 A.2d 498 (1985).” In order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach; see, e.g., Stolberg v. Caldwell, 175 Conn. 586, 597-98 , 402 A.2d 763 (1978), appeal dismissed sub nom.

1992State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 112 , 547 A.2d 10 (1988); State v. Stoddard, 206 Conn. 157, 166 , 537 A.2d 446 (1988); State v. Kimbro, 197 Conn. 219, 235-36 , 496 A.2d 498 (1985).” In order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach; see, e.g., Stolberg v. Caldwell, 175 Conn. 586, 597-98 , 402 A.2d 763 (1978), appeal dismissed sub nom.