147 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2026 24 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 |
|---|---|---|
Loisel v. Rowegreen2 sentences2026The respondent mother’s claim that her challenge to the order of temporary custody remained eligible for review under the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine failed under the first required criterion of that doctrine under Loisel v. Rowe ( 233 Conn. 370 ), namely, that the challenged action was of such limited duration that a strong likelihood that the substantial majority of cases raising a question about its validity will become moot before appellate litigation can be concluded, as she failed to pursue opportunities to challenge the order of temporary 2026For an otherwise moot question to qualify for review under the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine, it must satisfy three require- ments as set forth by our Supreme Court in Loisel v. Rowe, 233 Conn. 370, 382 , 660 A.2d 323 (1995). | 22 | 41 |
State v. McElveengreen2 sentences2015We conclude, however, that the collateral conse- quences exception to the mootness doctrine, as set forth in State v. McElveen, 261 Conn. 198 , 802 A.2d 74 (2002), is applicable under the circumstances of this case. 2015We conclude, however, that the collateral conse- quences exception to the mootness doctrine, as set forth in State v. McElveen, 261 Conn. 198 , 802 A.2d 74 (2002), is applicable under the circumstances of this case. | 4 | 7 |
Williams v. Ragagliagreen2 sentences2024Whe[n] there is no direct practical relief available from the reversal of the judgment . . . the collateral consequences doctrine acts as a surrogate, calling for a determination whether a decision in the case can afford the litigant some practi- cal relief in the future.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Claudia F., 93 Conn. App. 343 , 345–46, 888 A.2d 1138 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 796 (2006); see also Williams v. Ragaglia, 261 Conn. 219 , 226–27, 802 A.2d 778 (2002). 2024Whe[n] there is no direct practical relief available from the reversal of the judgment . . . the collateral consequences doctrine acts as a surrogate, calling for a determination whether a decision in the case can afford the litigant some practi- cal relief in the future.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Claudia F., 93 Conn. App. 343 , 345–46, 888 A.2d 1138 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 796 (2006); see also Williams v. Ragaglia, 261 Conn. 219 , 226–27, 802 A.2d 778 (2002). | 4 | 6 |
Russo v. Common Councilgreen2 sentences2023See Russo v. Common Council, 80 Conn. App. 100, 110 , 832 A.2d 1227 (2003) (‘‘Loisel does not provide an exception to the mootness doctrine when it is merely possible that a question could recur’’ (emphasis omitted)). 2023See Russo v. Common Council, 80 Conn. App. 100, 110 , 832 A.2d 1227 (2003) (‘‘Loisel does not provide an exception to the mootness doctrine when it is merely possible that a question could recur’’ (emphasis omitted)). | 2 | 4 |
Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commissiongreen2 sentences1997See Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven v. FOIC , 240 Conn. 1 , 7 , 688 A.2d 314 (1997) (the mootness doctrine ensures that an actual controversy exists); Grace Community Church v. Bethel , 30 Conn. App. 765 , 769 , 622 A.2d 591 (courts will not decide moot questions, the determination of which no practical relief can follow), cert. denied 226 Conn. 903 , 625 A.2d 1375 , cert. denied 510 U.S. 944 , 114 S.Ct. 383 , 126 L.Ed.2d 332 (1993). 1997See Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven v. FOIC, 240 Conn. 1 , 7 , ___ A.2d ___ (1997) (the mootness doctrine ensures that an actual controversy exists); Grace Community Church v. Bethel, 30 Conn. App. 765 , 769 , 622 A.2d 591 (courts will not decide moot questions, the determination of which no practical relief can follow), cert. denied 226 Conn. 903 , 625 A.2d 1375 , cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 383 , 126 L.Ed.2d 332 (1993). | 2 | 4 |
Shays v. Local Grievance Committeegreen2 sentences1993A well defined exception to the mootness rule is where the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Moshier v. Goodnow, 217 Conn. 303, 307 , 586 A.2d 557 (1991); Shays v. Local Grievance Committee, 197 Conn. 566, 573 , 499 A.2d 1158 (1985). 1993A well defined exception to the mootness rule is where the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Moshier v. Goodnow, 217 Conn. 303, 307 , 586 A.2d 557 (1991); Shays v. Local Grievance Committee, 197 Conn. 566, 573 , 499 A.2d 1158 (1985). | 2 | 4 |
Dutkiewicz v. Dutkiewiczgreen2 sentences2017See Dutki e wicz v. Dutki e wicz , 289 Conn. 362 , 366-67, 957 A.2d 821 (2008) ("[although] the existence of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction ... [t]he mootness doctrine does not preclude a court from addressing an issue that is capable of repetition, yet evading review" [internal quotation marks omitted] ). 2017See Dutki e wicz v. Dutki e wicz , 289 Conn. 362 , 366-67, 957 A.2d 821 (2008) ("[although] the existence of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction ... [t]he mootness doctrine does not preclude a court from addressing an issue that is capable of repetition, yet evading review" [internal quotation marks omitted] ). | 2 | 2 |
Putman v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2018In Putman v. Kennedy , 279 Conn. 162 , 164-65, 900 A.2d 1256 (2006), our Supreme Court concluded that the adverse collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine applied to appeals from domestic violence restraining orders. 2018In Putman v. Kennedy , 279 Conn. 162 , 164-65, 900 A.2d 1256 (2006), our Supreme Court concluded that the adverse collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine applied to appeals from domestic violence restraining orders. | 1 | 5 |
Iacurci v. Wellsgreen2 sentences2026Although the plaintiff has invoked this exception to the mootness doctrine in his supplemental memorandum, he has “failed to bring to our attention any adverse collat- eral consequences that will befall [him] . . . .” Iacurci v. McCullough v. Rocky Hill Wells, 108 Conn. App. 274, 283, 947 A.2d 1034 (2008). 2026Although the plaintiff has invoked this exception to the mootness doctrine in his supplemental memorandum, he has “failed to bring to our attention any adverse collat- eral consequences that will befall [him] . . . .” Iacurci v. McCullough v. Rocky Hill Wells, 108 Conn. App. 274, 283, 947 A.2d 1034 (2008). | 1 | 3 |
Patterson v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen2 sentences2015Unless the petitioner’s claim falls under an exception to the mootness doctrine, we must dismiss his appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.’’ (Citations omit- ted.) Id., 830–31. 2009The mootness doctrine does not preclude a court from addressing an issue that would otherwise be considered moot if it is “capable of repetition, yet evading review” or has “collateral consequences.” See id. | 1 | 3 |
Weinstein v. Bradfordgreen2 sentences1998The Union also argues that this case is subject to the mootness exception of "capable of repetition yet evading review." Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 , 96 S.Ct. 347 , 46 L.Ed.2d CT Page 561 350 (1975); Board of Education v. Board of Labor Relations, 205 Conn. 116 , 126 , 530 A.2d 588 (1987); Hartford Principal's Supervisor's Assn. v. Shedd, 202 Conn. 492 , 496 , 522 A.2d 264 (1987). 1998The Union also argues that this case is subject to the mootness exception of "capable of repetition yet evading review." Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 , 96 S.Ct. 347 , 46 L.Ed.2d CT Page 561 350 (1975); Board of Education v. Board of Labor Relations, 205 Conn. 116 , 126 , 530 A.2d 588 (1987); Hartford Principal's Supervisor's Assn. v. Shedd, 202 Conn. 492 , 496 , 522 A.2d 264 (1987). | 1 | 3 |
Connecticut Foundry Co. v. International Ladies Garment Workers Uniongreen2 sentences1989We have duly considered this exception, succinctly described in Connecticut Foundry Co. v. International Ladies Garment Workers Union, 177 Conn. 17, 20-21 , 411 A.2d 1 (1979), and find it inapplicable to this case. 1989We have duly considered this exception, succinctly described in Connecticut Foundry Co. v. International Ladies Garment Workers Union, 177 Conn. 17, 20-21 , 411 A.2d 1 (1979), and find it inapplicable to this case. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Reddygreen2 sentences2018Where there is no direct practical relief available from the reversal of the judgment ... the collateral consequences doctrine acts as a surrogate, calling for a determination whether a decision in the case can afford the litigant some practical relief in the future.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddy , 135 Conn. App. 65 , 69-70, 42 A.3d 406 (2012) ; see also Williams v. Ragaglia , 261 Conn. 219 , 226, 802 A.2d 778 (2002) (litigant bears burden of demonstrating reasonable possibility that prejudicial consequences will occur); State v. McElveen , supra, 261 Conn. at 205 , 802 2018Where there is no direct practical relief available from the reversal of the judgment ... the collateral consequences doctrine acts as a surrogate, calling for a determination whether a decision in the case can afford the litigant some practical relief in the future.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddy , 135 Conn. App. 65 , 69-70, 42 A.3d 406 (2012) ; see also Williams v. Ragaglia , 261 Conn. 219 , 226, 802 A.2d 778 (2002) (litigant bears burden of demonstrating reasonable possibility that prejudicial consequences will occur); State v. McElveen , supra, 261 Conn. at 205 , 802 | 1 | 2 |
In Re Priscilla A.green2 sentences2018In re Priscilla A. , 122 Conn. App. 832 , 836, 2 A.3d 24 (2010). 2018In re Priscilla A. , 122 Conn. App. 832 , 836, 2 A.3d 24 (2010). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wassilliegreen2 sentences2017Cf. State v. Wassillie , 606 P.2d 1279 , 1280 (Alaska 1980) (applying same exception under similar circumstances); Kraft v. State , 156 So.3d 1116 , 1117 (Fla. App. 2015) (same); Saunders v. Hornecker , 344 P.3d 771 , 775 (Wyo. 2015) (applying same exception to different constitutional challenge to bail order). 2017Cf. State v. Wassil- lie, 606 P.2d 1279, 1280 (Alaska 1980) (applying same exception under similar circumstances); Kraft v. State, 156 So. 3d 1116, 1117 (Fla. App. 2015) (same); Saunders v. Hornecker, 344 P.3d 771, 775 (Wyo. 2015) (applying same exception to different constitutional challenge to bail order). | 1 | 2 |
Saunders v. Horneckergreen2 sentences2017Cf. State v. Wassillie , 606 P.2d 1279 , 1280 (Alaska 1980) (applying same exception under similar circumstances); Kraft v. State , 156 So.3d 1116 , 1117 (Fla. App. 2015) (same); Saunders v. Hornecker , 344 P.3d 771 , 775 (Wyo. 2015) (applying same exception to different constitutional challenge to bail order). 2017Cf. State v. Wassil- lie, 606 P.2d 1279, 1280 (Alaska 1980) (applying same exception under similar circumstances); Kraft v. State, 156 So. 3d 1116, 1117 (Fla. App. 2015) (same); Saunders v. Hornecker, 344 P.3d 771, 775 (Wyo. 2015) (applying same exception to different constitutional challenge to bail order). | 1 | 2 |
Stephanie Kraft v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Cf. State v. Wassillie , 606 P.2d 1279 , 1280 (Alaska 1980) (applying same exception under similar circumstances); Kraft v. State , 156 So.3d 1116 , 1117 (Fla. App. 2015) (same); Saunders v. Hornecker , 344 P.3d 771 , 775 (Wyo. 2015) (applying same exception to different constitutional challenge to bail order). 2017Cf. State v. Wassil- lie, 606 P.2d 1279, 1280 (Alaska 1980) (applying same exception under similar circumstances); Kraft v. State, 156 So. 3d 1116, 1117 (Fla. App. 2015) (same); Saunders v. Hornecker, 344 P.3d 771, 775 (Wyo. 2015) (applying same exception to different constitutional challenge to bail order). | 1 | 2 |
PIQUET v. Town of Chestergreen2 sentences2012Guided by this court’s recent decision in In re Addie May Nesbitt, 124 Conn. App. 400 , 5 A.3d 518 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 917 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010), we conclude that although this appeal is moot, it satisfies the requirements of the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine. 2012Guided by this court’s recent decision in In re Addie May Nesbitt, 124 Conn. App. 400 , 5 A.3d 518 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 917 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010), we conclude that although this appeal is moot, it satisfies the requirements of the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Nesbittgreen2 sentences2012Guided by this court’s recent decision in In re Addie May Nesbitt, 124 Conn. App. 400 , 5 A.3d 518 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 917 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010), we conclude that although this appeal is moot, it satisfies the requirements of the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine. 2012Guided by this court’s recent decision in In re Addie May Nesbitt, 124 Conn. App. 400 , 5 A.3d 518 , cert. denied, 299 Conn. 917 , 10 A.3d 1051 (2010), we conclude that although this appeal is moot, it satisfies the requirements of the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine. | 1 | 2 |
| In re Forrest B.green | 1 | 2 |
| Tappin v. Homecomings Financial Network, Inc.green | 1 | 2 |
| Perry v. Perrygreen | 1 | 2 |
| Georges v. OB-GYN Services, P.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Guildgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kennedy v. Kennedygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Taber v. Tabergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Josephine Towers, L.P. v. Kellygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carhart v. Stenberggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Longogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rosemarie B.-F. v. Curtis P.green | 1 | 1 |
| Sweeney v. Sweeneygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Peterson v. Roblesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chimblo v. Monahan
neutral
2 sentences2009Whe[n] there is no direct practical relief available . . . the collateral consequences doctrine acts as a surrogate, calling for a determination whether a decision in the case can afford the litigant some practical relief in the future.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chimblo v. Monahan, 265 Conn. 650, 655-56 , 829 A.2d 841 (2003). *491 The court’s December 3, 2008 order rendered the defendant’s appeal moot. 2009Whe[n] there is no direct practical relief available . . . the collateral consequences doctrine acts as a surrogate, calling for a determination whether a decision in the case can afford the litigant some practical relief in the future.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chimblo v. Monahan, 265 Conn. 650, 655-56 , 829 A.2d 841 (2003). *491 The court’s December 3, 2008 order rendered the defendant’s appeal moot. | 5 | 2005–2009 |
State v. Nardini
green
2 sentences2022The principles underpin- ning the mootness doctrine and justiciability are well settled. ‘‘We begin with the four part test for justiciabil- ity established in State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 109 , 445 A.2d 304 (1982). . . . 2022The principles underpin- ning the mootness doctrine and justiciability are well settled. ‘‘We begin with the four part test for justiciabil- ity established in State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 109 , 445 A.2d 304 (1982). . . . | 4 | 2009–2022 |
Grace Community Church v. Town of Bethel
green
2 sentences1997See Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven v. FOIC, 240 Conn. 1 , 7 , ___ A.2d ___ (1997) (the mootness doctrine ensures that an actual controversy exists); Grace Community Church v. Bethel, 30 Conn. App. 765 , 769 , 622 A.2d 591 (courts will not decide moot questions, the determination of which no practical relief can follow), cert. denied 226 Conn. 903 , 625 A.2d 1375 , cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 383 , 126 L.Ed.2d 332 (1993). 1997See Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven v. FOIC, 240 Conn. 1 , 7 , ___ A.2d ___ (1997) (the mootness doctrine ensures that an actual controversy exists); Grace Community Church v. Bethel, 30 Conn. App. 765 , 769 , 622 A.2d 591 (courts will not decide moot questions, the determination of which no practical relief can follow), cert. denied 226 Conn. 903 , 625 A.2d 1375 , cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 383 , 126 L.Ed.2d 332 (1993). | 4 | 1993–1997 |
Ivimey v. Town of Watertown
green
2 sentences1997See Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven v. FOIC , 240 Conn. 1 , 7 , 688 A.2d 314 (1997) (the mootness doctrine ensures that an actual controversy exists); Grace Community Church v. Bethel , 30 Conn. App. 765 , 769 , 622 A.2d 591 (courts will not decide moot questions, the determination of which no practical relief can follow), cert. denied 226 Conn. 903 , 625 A.2d 1375 , cert. denied 510 U.S. 944 , 114 S.Ct. 383 , 126 L.Ed.2d 332 (1993). 1997See Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven v. FOIC, 240 Conn. 1 , 7 , ___ A.2d ___ (1997) (the mootness doctrine ensures that an actual controversy exists); Grace Community Church v. Bethel, 30 Conn. App. 765 , 769 , 622 A.2d 591 (courts will not decide moot questions, the determination of which no practical relief can follow), cert. denied 226 Conn. 903 , 625 A.2d 1375 , cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 383 , 126 L.Ed.2d 332 (1993). | 3 | 1996–1997 |
Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
green
2 sentences1994A well established exception to the mootness rule is where the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 498, 515 , 31 S. Ct. 279 , 55 L. 1994A well established exception to the mootness rule is where the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 498, 515 , 31 S. Ct. 279 , 55 L. | 3 | 1982–1994 |
State v. McElveen
green
2 sentences2026Accordingly, “[b]ecause the [plaintiff] has not established [prejudicial collateral] consequences by more than mere conjecture, he has not successfully invoked the collateral consequences excep- tion to the mootness doctrine.” State v. McElveen, 117 Conn. App. 486, 492 n.5, 979 A.2d 604 (2009), appeal dismissed, 302 Conn. 532, 29 A.3d 897 (2011) (certifica- tion improvidently granted). 2026Accordingly, “[b]ecause the [plaintiff] has not established [prejudicial collateral] consequences by more than mere conjecture, he has not successfully invoked the collateral consequences excep- tion to the mootness doctrine.” State v. McElveen, 117 Conn. App. 486, 492 n.5, 979 A.2d 604 (2009), appeal dismissed, 302 Conn. 532, 29 A.3d 897 (2011) (certifica- tion improvidently granted). | 2 | 2009–2026 |
Burton v. Dept. of Environmental Protection
green
2 sentences2024Finally, to the extent the petitioner’s counsel attempted to invoke the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine during oral argument before this court, we do not consider them because ‘‘[i]t is well settled that a claim cannot be raised for the first time at oral argument.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Burton v. Dept. of Environmental Pro- tection, 337 Conn. 781 , 797 n.12, 256 A.3d 655 (2021). 2024Finally, to the extent the petitioner’s counsel attempted to invoke the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine during oral argument before this court, we do not consider them because ‘‘[i]t is well settled that a claim cannot be raised for the first time at oral argument.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Burton v. Dept. of Environmental Pro- tection, 337 Conn. 781 , 797 n.12, 256 A.3d 655 (2021). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Gomes
green
2 sentences2024When, during the pendency of an appeal, events have occurred that preclude an appellate court from granting any practical relief through its disposition of the merits, a case has become moot.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gomes, 337 Conn. 826 , 838–39, 256 A.3d 131 (2021). 2024When, during the pendency of an appeal, events have occurred that preclude an appellate court from granting any practical relief through its disposition of the merits, a case has become moot.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gomes, 337 Conn. 826 , 838–39, 256 A.3d 131 (2021). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Pierre v. Solnit
green
2 sentences2023Id., 401 . 2023Id., 401 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Boisvert v. Gavis
green
2 sentences2023As between private parties, and relying on case law involv- ing private parties, we have stated that, ‘‘a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a . . . court of its power to determine the legal- ity of the practice, because, [i]f it did, the courts would be compelled to leave [t]he defendant . . . free to return to his old ways.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Boisvert v. Gavis, 332 Conn. 115 , 139–40, 210 A.3d 1 (2019). 2023As between private parties, and relying on case law involv- ing private parties, we have stated that, ‘‘a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a . . . court of its power to determine the legal- ity of the practice, because, [i]f it did, the courts would be compelled to leave [t]he defendant . . . free to return to his old ways.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Boisvert v. Gavis, 332 Conn. 115 , 139–40, 210 A.3d 1 (2019). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Preston
green
2 sentences2015The defendant nevertheless argues that this appeal is not moot because the collateral consequences excep- tion to the mootness doctrine applies. ‘‘[U]nder this court’s long-standing mootness jurisprudence . . . despite developments during the pendency of an appeal that would otherwise render a claim moot, the court may retain jurisdiction when a litigant shows that there is a reasonable possibility that prejudicial collateral consequences will occur.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Preston, 286 Conn. 367, 382 , 944 A.2d 276 (2008). ‘‘[T]o invoke successfully the collateral con- 2015The defendant nevertheless argues that this appeal is not moot because the collateral consequences excep- tion to the mootness doctrine applies. ‘‘[U]nder this court’s long-standing mootness jurisprudence . . . despite developments during the pendency of an appeal that would otherwise render a claim moot, the court may retain jurisdiction when a litigant shows that there is a reasonable possibility that prejudicial collateral consequences will occur.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Preston, 286 Conn. 367, 382 , 944 A.2d 276 (2008). ‘‘[T]o invoke successfully the collateral con- | 2 | 2009–2015 |
| Hartford Principals' & Supervisors' Ass'n v. Shedd green | 2 | 1992–1998 |
| Board of Education v. Connecticut Board of Labor Relations neutral | 2 | 1995–1998 |
| Grace Community Church v. Town of Bethel green | 2 | 1997–1997 |
| Grace Community Church v. Town of Bethel green | 2 | 1997–1997 |
| Kurahara & Morrissey v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation green | 2 | 1997–1997 |
| Moshier v. Goodnow green | 2 | 1993–1995 |
| Taylor v. Robinson green | 2 | 1981–1995 |
| Board of Education v. City of New Haven green | 2 | 1992–1992 |
| Sosna v. Iowa green | 2 | 1979–1987 |
| Smith v. Commissioner of Correction green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| In Re Earl B. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. McElveen green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Fleming v. City of Bridgeport green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Wilcox v. Ferraina green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Fleming v. City of Bridgeport green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| In Re Earl B. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| R. G.-R. v. S. R. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| In re Claudia F. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Kyle S. v. Jayne K. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In Re Alba P.-V. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Powell green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Bowden v. Commissioner of Correction green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| American Tax Funding, LLC v. Design Land Developers of Newtown, Inc. yellow | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Lyon v. Jones green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Lester green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Hunt v. Guimond green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Mercado v. Comm'r of Corr. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Fletcher green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Fletcher green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.
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.