plenary standard in Connecticut

148 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1922–2026 20 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.

Followed or applied (42)

Case	Followed	Cited
In re William D.green conn · 2007 · cited in 5 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2008–2012 2 sentences 2012See In re William D., 97 Conn. App. 600, 606 , 905 A.2d 696 (2006), aff'd, 284 Conn. 305 , 933 A.2d 1147 (2007). “[Although it is not constitutionally required that counsel be appointed to indigent parents in termination proceedings; Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, [452 U.S. 480 18, 32, 101 S. Ct. 2153 , 68 L. 2012See In re William D., 97 Conn. App. 600, 606 , 905 A.2d 696 (2006), aff'd, 284 Conn. 305 , 933 A.2d 1147 (2007). “[Although it is not constitutionally required that counsel be appointed to indigent parents in termination proceedings; Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, [452 U.S. 480 18, 32, 101 S. Ct. 2153 , 68 L.	5	5
In Re William D.green connappct · 2006 · cited in 5 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2008–2012 2 sentences 2012See In re William D., 97 Conn. App. 600, 606 , 905 A.2d 696 (2006), aff'd, 284 Conn. 305 , 933 A.2d 1147 (2007). “[Although it is not constitutionally required that counsel be appointed to indigent parents in termination proceedings; Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, [452 U.S. 480 18, 32, 101 S. Ct. 2153 , 68 L. 2012See In re William D., 97 Conn. App. 600, 606 , 905 A.2d 696 (2006), aff'd, 284 Conn. 305 , 933 A.2d 1147 (2007). “[Although it is not constitutionally required that counsel be appointed to indigent parents in termination proceedings; Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, [452 U.S. 480 18, 32, 101 S. Ct. 2153 , 68 L.	5	5
In re T.K.green connappct · 2008 · cited in 7 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2010–2016 2 sentences 2016See In re T.K., 105 Conn.App. 502 , 506, 939 A.2d 9 ( [t]he application of a statute to a particular set of facts is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 914 , 945 A.2d 976 (2008) ; Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350 , 357, 710 A.2d 717 (1998) (interpretation of statutory scheme that governs child support determinations constitutes question of law)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 , 200, 61 A.3d 449 (2013). 2016See In re T.K., 105 Conn. App. 502, 506 , 939 A.2d 9 ([t]he application of a statute to a particular set of facts is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 914 , 945 A.2d 976 (2008); Unkel- bach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350, 357 , 710 A.2d 717 (1998) (interpretation of statutory scheme that governs child support determinations constitutes question of law).’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tuckman v. Tuck- man, 308 Conn. 194 , 200, 61 A.3d 449 (2013).	4	7
Murphy v. Lord Thompson Manor, Inc.green conn · 2008 · cited in 7 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2010–2016 2 sentences 2016See In re T.K., 105 Conn.App. 502 , 506, 939 A.2d 9 ( [t]he application of a statute to a particular set of facts is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 914 , 945 A.2d 976 (2008) ; Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350 , 357, 710 A.2d 717 (1998) (interpretation of statutory scheme that governs child support determinations constitutes question of law)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 , 200, 61 A.3d 449 (2013). 2016See In re T.K., 105 Conn.App. 502 , 506, 939 A.2d 9 ( [t]he application of a statute to a particular set of facts is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 914 , 945 A.2d 976 (2008) ; Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350 , 357, 710 A.2d 717 (1998) (interpretation of statutory scheme that governs child support determinations constitutes question of law)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 , 200, 61 A.3d 449 (2013).	4	7
In Re TKgreen connappct · 2008 · cited in 7 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2010–2016 2 sentences 2016See In re T.K., 105 Conn.App. 502 , 506, 939 A.2d 9 ( [t]he application of a statute to a particular set of facts is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 914 , 945 A.2d 976 (2008) ; Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350 , 357, 710 A.2d 717 (1998) (interpretation of statutory scheme that governs child support determinations constitutes question of law)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 , 200, 61 A.3d 449 (2013). 2016See In re T.K., 105 Conn. App. 502, 506 , 939 A.2d 9 ([t]he application of a statute to a particular set of facts is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 914 , 945 A.2d 976 (2008); Unkel- bach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350, 357 , 710 A.2d 717 (1998) (interpretation of statutory scheme that governs child support determinations constitutes question of law).’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tuckman v. Tuck- man, 308 Conn. 194 , 200, 61 A.3d 449 (2013).	4	7
In re Nasia B.green connappct · 2006 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2007–2008 2 sentences 2008We review the application of a statute to a particular set of facts by the plenary standard of review. 395 See In re Nasia B., 98 Conn. App. 319, 328 , 908 A.2d 1090 (2006). 2008We review the application of a statute to a particular set of facts by the plenary standard of review. 395 See In re Nasia B., 98 Conn. App. 319, 328 , 908 A.2d 1090 (2006).	3	4
Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appealsgreen connappct · 2003 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2011–2021 2 sentences 2021In the context of an administrative appeal, ‘‘the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding . . . clearly presents a question of law’’ that ‘‘we examine . . . under the plenary standard of review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 256 , 820 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 177 (2003). 2021In the context of an administrative appeal, ‘‘the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding . . . clearly presents a question of law’’ that ‘‘we examine . . . under the plenary standard of review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 256 , 820 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 177 (2003).	2	3
State v. Vitalegreen conn · 2003 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2011–2021 2 sentences 2021In the context of an administrative appeal, ‘‘the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding . . . clearly presents a question of law’’ that ‘‘we examine . . . under the plenary standard of review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 256 , 820 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 177 (2003). 2011Just as when we employ a plenary standard of review over the Superior Court’s interpretation of local land use regulations; see Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 229 , 820 A.2d 275 (“[b]ecause the court, in interpreting the regulations, made conclusions of law . . . our review is plenary”), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 177 (2003); we conclude that when a lower court interprets the terms of a variance or its conditions, our review likewise is plenary over that question of law.	2	3
Macmillan v. Higginsgreen conn · 2003 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2011–2021 2 sentences 2021In the context of an administrative appeal, ‘‘the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding . . . clearly presents a question of law’’ that ‘‘we examine . . . under the plenary standard of review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 256 , 820 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 177 (2003). 2011Just as when we employ a plenary standard of review over the Superior Court’s interpretation of local land use regulations; see Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 229 , 820 A.2d 275 (“[b]ecause the court, in interpreting the regulations, made conclusions of law . . . our review is plenary”), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 177 (2003); we conclude that when a lower court interprets the terms of a variance or its conditions, our review likewise is plenary over that question of law.	2	3
City of Hartford v. CBV Parking Hartford, LLCgreen conn · 2018 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022See Hartford v. CBV Parking Hartford, LLC, 330 Conn. 200, 214 , 192 A.3d 406 (2018) (‘‘[w]hether the trial court applied the proper legal standard is subject to plenary review on appeal’’); Kunz v. Sylvain, 159 Conn. App. 730 , 748, 123 A.3d 1267 (2015) (‘‘[w]e apply a plenary standard of review to the issue of whether the correct legal standard was used by the trial court’’); see also Cunningham v. Cunningham, 204 Conn. App. 366, 373 , 254 A.3d 330 (2021) (plenary review applies to interpre- tation of judgment); In re Jacquelyn W., 169 Conn. App. 233, 241 , 150 A.3d 692 (2016) (interpretation 2022See Hartford v. CBV Parking Hartford, LLC, 330 Conn. 200, 214 , 192 A.3d 406 (2018) (‘‘[w]hether the trial court applied the proper legal standard is subject to plenary review on appeal’’); Kunz v. Sylvain, 159 Conn. App. 730 , 748, 123 A.3d 1267 (2015) (‘‘[w]e apply a plenary standard of review to the issue of whether the correct legal standard was used by the trial court’’); see also Cunningham v. Cunningham, 204 Conn. App. 366, 373 , 254 A.3d 330 (2021) (plenary review applies to interpre- tation of judgment); In re Jacquelyn W., 169 Conn. App. 233, 241 , 150 A.3d 692 (2016) (interpretation	2	2
Cunningham v. Cunninghamgreen connappct · 2021 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022See Hartford v. CBV Parking Hartford, LLC, 330 Conn. 200, 214 , 192 A.3d 406 (2018) (‘‘[w]hether the trial court applied the proper legal standard is subject to plenary review on appeal’’); Kunz v. Sylvain, 159 Conn. App. 730 , 748, 123 A.3d 1267 (2015) (‘‘[w]e apply a plenary standard of review to the issue of whether the correct legal standard was used by the trial court’’); see also Cunningham v. Cunningham, 204 Conn. App. 366, 373 , 254 A.3d 330 (2021) (plenary review applies to interpre- tation of judgment); In re Jacquelyn W., 169 Conn. App. 233, 241 , 150 A.3d 692 (2016) (interpretation 2022See Hartford v. CBV Parking Hartford, LLC, 330 Conn. 200, 214 , 192 A.3d 406 (2018) (‘‘[w]hether the trial court applied the proper legal standard is subject to plenary review on appeal’’); Kunz v. Sylvain, 159 Conn. App. 730 , 748, 123 A.3d 1267 (2015) (‘‘[w]e apply a plenary standard of review to the issue of whether the correct legal standard was used by the trial court’’); see also Cunningham v. Cunningham, 204 Conn. App. 366, 373 , 254 A.3d 330 (2021) (plenary review applies to interpre- tation of judgment); In re Jacquelyn W., 169 Conn. App. 233, 241 , 150 A.3d 692 (2016) (interpretation	2	2
Webster Bank v. Zakgreen conn · 2002 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2008–2020 2 sentences 2020See Pond View, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 288 Conn. 143, 155 , 953 A.2d 1 (2008). ‘‘[T]he question of subject matter jurisdiction, because it addresses the basic competency of the court, can be raised by any of the parties, or by the court sua sponte, at any time.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Web- ster Bank v. Zak, 259 Conn. 766, 774 , 792 A.2d 66 (2002). ‘‘Once the question of lack of jurisdiction of a court is raised . . . [t]he court must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case. . . . 2020See Pond View, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 288 Conn. 143, 155 , 953 A.2d 1 (2008). ‘‘[T]he question of subject matter jurisdiction, because it addresses the basic competency of the court, can be raised by any of the parties, or by the court sua sponte, at any time.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Web- ster Bank v. Zak, 259 Conn. 766, 774 , 792 A.2d 66 (2002). ‘‘Once the question of lack of jurisdiction of a court is raised . . . [t]he court must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case. . . .	2	2
Ryan v. Cerullogreen conn · 2007 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2011–2013 2 sentences 2013See Ryan v. Cerullo, 282 Conn. 109, 118 , 918 A.2d 867 (2007). 2013See Ryan v. Cerullo, 282 Conn. 109, 118 , 918 A.2d 867 (2007).	2	2
Friezo v. Friezogreen conn · 2007 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2008–2010	2	2
State v. Sanchezgreen conn · 2003 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2003–2006	2	2
Sweeney v. Sweeneygreen conn · 2003 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2003–2006	2	2
State v. Sanchezgreen connappct · 2003 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2003–2006	2	2
Unkelbach v. McNarygreen conn · 1998 · cited in 5 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2010–2016 2 sentences 2016See In re T.K., 105 Conn.App. 502 , 506, 939 A.2d 9 ( [t]he application of a statute to a particular set of facts is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 914 , 945 A.2d 976 (2008) ; Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350 , 357, 710 A.2d 717 (1998) (interpretation of statutory scheme that governs child support determinations constitutes question of law)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 , 200, 61 A.3d 449 (2013). 2016See In re T.K., 105 Conn.App. 502 , 506, 939 A.2d 9 ( [t]he application of a statute to a particular set of facts is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 914 , 945 A.2d 976 (2008) ; Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350 , 357, 710 A.2d 717 (1998) (interpretation of statutory scheme that governs child support determinations constitutes question of law)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tuckman v. Tuckman, 308 Conn. 194 , 200, 61 A.3d 449 (2013).	1	5
State v. Fermaintgreen conn · 2005 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2008–2018 2 sentences 2008See Winchester v. McCue, 91 Conn.App. 721, 726 , 882 A.2d 143 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 922 , 888 A.2d 91 (2005). [2] Even under the plenary standard of review, however, this court's duty is to decide whether the trial court's legal conclusion is legally and logically correct and finds support in the facts that appear in the record. 2008See Winchester v. McCue, 91 Conn. App. 721, 726 , 882 A.2d 143 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 922 , 888 A.2d 91 (2005). 2 Even under the plenary standard of review, however, this court’s duty is to decide whether the trial court’s legal conclusion is legally and logically correct and finds support in the facts that appear in the record.	1	3
Winn v. Posadesgreen conn · 2005 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2008–2018 2 sentences 2008See Winchester v. McCue, 91 Conn.App. 721, 726 , 882 A.2d 143 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 922 , 888 A.2d 91 (2005). [2] Even under the plenary standard of review, however, this court's duty is to decide whether the trial court's legal conclusion is legally and logically correct and finds support in the facts that appear in the record. 2008See Winchester v. McCue, 91 Conn. App. 721, 726 , 882 A.2d 143 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 922 , 888 A.2d 91 (2005). 2 Even under the plenary standard of review, however, this court’s duty is to decide whether the trial court’s legal conclusion is legally and logically correct and finds support in the facts that appear in the record.	1	3
Winchester v. McCuegreen connappct · 2005 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2008–2018 2 sentences 2008See Winchester v. McCue, 91 Conn. App. 721, 726 , 882 A.2d 143 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 922 , 888 A.2d 91 (2005). 2 Even under the plenary standard of review, however, this court’s duty is to decide whether the trial court’s legal conclusion is legally and logically correct and finds support in the facts that appear in the record. 2008See Winchester v. McCue, 91 Conn. App. 721, 726 , 882 A.2d 143 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 922 , 888 A.2d 91 (2005). 2 Even under the plenary standard of review, however, this court’s duty is to decide whether the trial court’s legal conclusion is legally and logically correct and finds support in the facts that appear in the record.	1	3
Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporationgreen njsuperctappdiv · 1979 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1980–1994 2 sentences 1994For these reasons the adoption of any such new doctrine must be grounded in a specific factual and legal context resulting from a plenary hearing, at which the proofs and public policy considerations involved will be fully developed and taken into account in the final determination," Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. , 399 A.2d 1023 , 1026 (N.J., 1979). 1980Super. 335 , 399 A.2d 1023 , the court, upon declaring that there should be a trial to determine whether the plaintiff’s alleged retaliatory discharge was in fact and in law wrongful, stated (p. 1026), inter alia: “[I]f there is to be such an exception to the at-will employment rule, it must be tightly circumscribed so as to apply only in cases involving truly significant matters of clear and well-defined public policy and substantial violations thereof. . . . [T]he adoption of any such new doctrine must be grounded in a specific factual and legal context resulting from a plenary hearing, at w	1	3
Miller v. Egangreen conn · 2003 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2010–2015 2 sentences 2015See Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, 327 , 828 A.2d 549 (2003). ‘‘When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objec- tive is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. . . . 2015See Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, 327 , 828 A.2d 549 (2003). ‘‘When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objec- tive is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. . . .	1	2
State v. Hackettgreen connappct · 2002 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003	1	2
Watch Hill Condominium, Inc. v. Van Eckgreen conn · 2002 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003	1	2
Traggis v. Shawmut Bank Connecticut, N.A.green conn · 2002 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003	1	2
Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. Buchmangreen conn · 2018 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026	1	1
In Re Francisco R.green connappct · 2008 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026	1	1
Centrix Management Co., LLC v. Valenciagreen connappct · 2013 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025	1	1
Rousseau v. Weinsteingreen connappct · 2021 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024	1	1
State v. Smithgreen conn · 2022 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024	1	1
State v. Kosuda-Bigazzigreen conn · 2020 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022	1	1
Cook-Littman v. Bd. of Selectmen of the Town of Fairfieldgreen conn · 2018 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021	1	1
Tatoian v. Tylergreen connappct · 2019 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020	1	1
Real Estate Mortg. Network, Inc. v. Squillantegreen conn · 2018 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020	1	1
State v. Morquechogreen connappct · 2012 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020	1	1
Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc. v. Squillantegreen connappct · 2018 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020	1	1
Fish v. Fishgreen conn · 2008 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020	1	1
Pond View, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commissiongreen conn · 2008 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020	1	1
Ginsberg & Ginsberg, LLC v. Alexandria Estates, LLCgreen connappct · 2014 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (38)

Case	Cited	Years
Miller v. Commissioner of Correction green conn · 1997 2 sentences 2026“Determining whether no reasonable fact finder, considering the entire body of evidence as the habeas court did, would find the petitioner guilty is either an application of law to the facts or a mixed question of law and fact to which a plenary standard of review applies.” Id., 805 . 2003The second prong of Miller , however, “whether no reasonable fact finder, considering the entire body of evidence as the habeas court did, would find the petitioner guilty is either an application of law to the facts or a mixed question of law and fact to which a plenary standard of review applies.” Id., 805 .	4	2003–2026
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Owen green conn · 2005 2 sentences 2022Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806, 814 , 873 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 902 , 882 A.2d 670 (2005). 2021Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806, 814 , 873 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 902 , 882 A.2d 670 (2005).	3	2020–2022
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Owen green connappct · 2005 2 sentences 2022Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806, 814 , 873 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 902 , 882 A.2d 670 (2005). 2022Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806, 814 , 873 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 902 , 882 A.2d 670 (2005).	3	2020–2022
State v. Fabricatore neutral conn · 2005 2 sentences 2022Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806, 814 , 873 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 902 , 882 A.2d 670 (2005). 2021Corp. v. Owen, 88 Conn. App. 806, 814 , 873 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 902 , 882 A.2d 670 (2005).	3	2020–2022
State v. Frasier green conn · 2017 2 sentences 2018We turn to our standard of review and applicable legal principles for this claim. ‘‘It is well settled that [a] determination regarding a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law and, therefore, we employ the plenary standard of review and decide whether the court’s conclusions are legally and logically correct and supported by the facts in the record.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Petaway v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 160 Conn. App. 727 , 731, 125 A.3d 1053 (2015), cert. dismissed, 324 Conn. 912 , 153 A.3d 1288 (2017). ‘‘With respect to the habeas court’s ju 2018"It is well settled that [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law and, therefore, we employ the plenary standard of review and decide whether the court's conclusions are legally and logically correct and supported by the facts in the record." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Petaway v. Commissioner of Correction , 160 Conn. App. 727 , 731, 125 A.3d 1053 (2015), cert. dismissed, 324 Conn. 912 , 153 A.3d 1288 (2017).	3	2018–2018
Nieves v. Comm'r of Corr. green conn · 2017 2 sentences 2018We turn to our standard of review and applicable legal principles for this claim. ‘‘It is well settled that [a] determination regarding a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law and, therefore, we employ the plenary standard of review and decide whether the court’s conclusions are legally and logically correct and supported by the facts in the record.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Petaway v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 160 Conn. App. 727 , 731, 125 A.3d 1053 (2015), cert. dismissed, 324 Conn. 912 , 153 A.3d 1288 (2017). ‘‘With respect to the habeas court’s ju 2018"It is well settled that [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law and, therefore, we employ the plenary standard of review and decide whether the court's conclusions are legally and logically correct and supported by the facts in the record." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Petaway v. Commissioner of Correction , 160 Conn. App. 727 , 731, 125 A.3d 1053 (2015), cert. dismissed, 324 Conn. 912 , 153 A.3d 1288 (2017).	3	2018–2018
Grynkewich v. McGinley green connappct · 1985 2 sentences 1999Grynkewich v. McGinley , 3 Conn. App. 541 (1985). 1998A court's competence to make this jurisdictional analysis does not create subject matter jurisdiction over the merits of the proceeding." Grynkewich , 3 Conn. App. at 546 .	3	1997–1999
In re Jacquelyn W. green connappct · 2016 2 sentences 2022See Hartford v. CBV Parking Hartford, LLC, 330 Conn. 200, 214 , 192 A.3d 406 (2018) (‘‘[w]hether the trial court applied the proper legal standard is subject to plenary review on appeal’’); Kunz v. Sylvain, 159 Conn. App. 730 , 748, 123 A.3d 1267 (2015) (‘‘[w]e apply a plenary standard of review to the issue of whether the correct legal standard was used by the trial court’’); see also Cunningham v. Cunningham, 204 Conn. App. 366, 373 , 254 A.3d 330 (2021) (plenary review applies to interpre- tation of judgment); In re Jacquelyn W., 169 Conn. App. 233, 241 , 150 A.3d 692 (2016) (interpretation 2022See Hartford v. CBV Parking Hartford, LLC, 330 Conn. 200, 214 , 192 A.3d 406 (2018) (‘‘[w]hether the trial court applied the proper legal standard is subject to plenary review on appeal’’); Kunz v. Sylvain, 159 Conn. App. 730 , 748, 123 A.3d 1267 (2015) (‘‘[w]e apply a plenary standard of review to the issue of whether the correct legal standard was used by the trial court’’); see also Cunningham v. Cunningham, 204 Conn. App. 366, 373 , 254 A.3d 330 (2021) (plenary review applies to interpre- tation of judgment); In re Jacquelyn W., 169 Conn. App. 233, 241 , 150 A.3d 692 (2016) (interpretation	2	2022–2022
Estela v. Bristol Hospital, Inc. green connappct · 2018 2 sentences 2021In such a situation our scope of review is plenary . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Condron, 181 Conn. App. 248, 265 , 186 A.3d 708 (2018). ‘‘Under the plenary standard of review, we must decide whether the court’s conclusions are legally and logically correct and supported by the facts in the record.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Estela v. Bristol Hospital, Inc., 179 Conn. App. 196 , 207–208, 180 A.3d 595 (2018). 2021In such a situation our scope of review is plenary . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Condron, 181 Conn. App. 248, 265 , 186 A.3d 708 (2018). ‘‘Under the plenary standard of review, we must decide whether the court’s conclusions are legally and logically correct and supported by the facts in the record.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Estela v. Bristol Hospital, Inc., 179 Conn. App. 196 , 207–208, 180 A.3d 595 (2018).	2	2021–2021
Florian v. Lenge green connappct · 2005 2 sentences 2014We disagree. ‘‘Whether a particular action is barred by the statute of limitations is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Florian v. Lenge, 91 Conn. App. 268, 279 , 880 A.2d 985 (2005). 2014We disagree. ‘‘Whether a particular action is barred by the statute of limitations is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Florian v. Lenge, 91 Conn. App. 268, 279 , 880 A.2d 985 (2005).	2	2013–2014
Maturo v. Maturo green conn · 2010 2 sentences 2012The notice shall be sent at least twice . . . .” “The power to sell land for delinquent taxes is strictly construed; the tax collector must substantially, if not strictly, comply with all statutory provisions.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Associates Financial Services of America, Inc. v. Sorensen, 46 Conn. App. 721, 726-27 , 700 A.2d 107 (1997), appeal dismissed, 245 Conn. 168 , 710 A.2d 769 (1998). “[T]he application of a statute to a particular set of facts is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted 2012The notice shall be sent at least twice . . . .” “The power to sell land for delinquent taxes is strictly construed; the tax collector must substantially, if not strictly, comply with all statutory provisions.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Associates Financial Services of America, Inc. v. Sorensen, 46 Conn. App. 721, 726-27 , 700 A.2d 107 (1997), appeal dismissed, 245 Conn. 168 , 710 A.2d 769 (1998). “[T]he application of a statute to a particular set of facts is a question of law to which we apply a plenary standard of review . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted	2	2010–2012
Neiman v. Yale University green conn · 2004	2	2005–2005
RCN Capital, LLC v. Sunford Properties & Development, LLC green connappct · 2020	1	2026–2026
R & R Pool & Patio, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals neutral connappct · 2011	1	2025–2025
Prime Bank v. Vitano, Inc. neutral connappct · 2020	1	2025–2025
Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP green conn · 2007	1	2024–2024
Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi green connappct · 2019	1	2024–2024
Harris v. Commissioner of Correction green connappct · 2012	1	2022–2022
Vendrella v. Astriab Family Limited Partnership green conn · 2012	1	2022–2022
Curran v. Kroll green conn · 2012	1	2022–2022
State Marshal Assn. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Johnson green connappct · 2020	1	2021–2021
Thompson Gardens West Condominium Ass'n v. Masto green connappct · 2013	1	2021–2021
Izzo v. Quinn green connappct · 2016	1	2021–2021
Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Condron green connappct · 2018	1	2021–2021
Crawford v. Washington green scotus · 2004	1	2020–2020
Hickey v. Comm'r of Corr. green conn · 2018	1	2020–2020
Windels v. Environmental Protection Commission green conn · 2007	1	2020–2020
Cathedral Green, Inc. v. Hughes green connappct · 2017	1	2019–2019
In Re Earl B. green conn · 2010	1	2019–2019
Smith v. Commissioner of Correction green conn · 2010	1	2019–2019
Holliday v. Commissioner of Correction green connappct · 2018	1	2019–2019
State v. Tabone green conn · 2006	1	2019–2019
State v. Mukhtaar green connappct · 2019	1	2019–2019
Sinotte v. City of Waterbury green connappct · 2010	1	2019–2019
State v. Nardini green conn · 1982	1	2019–2019
Vitale v. Commissioner of Correction neutral connappct · 2017	1	2018–2018
State v. Dickson green conn · 2016	1	2018–2018
Verdin-Garcia v. United States green scotus · 2017	1	2018–2018

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-2z (14) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-129 (13) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-199 (13) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a (11) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-112 (10) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-120 (10) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a (10) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-212a (9) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-48 (8) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-142 (7) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-470 (7) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-70 (6)

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.

Where else courts name it

NJ 758 (1956–2026) NY 208 (1958–2026) CT 148 (1922–2026) PA 32 (2005–2025) VA 21 (1968–2024) IL 21 (1967–2026) TX 19 (1972–2021) MD 17 (1967–2017) WV 13 (1983–2023) ME 12 (1979–2020) CA 11 (1955–2014) VI 9 (2013–2024) KS 9 (1966–2009) FL 7 (1964–2010) NC 6 (1967–2017) WI 5 (1988–1991) OH 5 (1984–2005) OR 5 (1951–1995) MA 4 (1936–2012) DC 4 (2001–2003) VT 3 (2007–2013) AL 3 (1971–1993) DE 3 (1999–2024) AZ 2 (1964–2016) MS 2 (1977–2023) OK 2 (1916–1999) MO 2 (1974–1987)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check