Evans-Golding analysis (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

Evans-Golding analysis in Connecticut

22 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2012 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Lebron v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen
conn · 2005 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2010–2012
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

33
State v. Torresgreen
conn · 1996 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1997–2000
2 sentences

2000"Adherence to th[e]se procedures is necessary to obtain proper judicial review." State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578 , 585 , 534 A.2d 1175 (1987); see State v. Teel , 42 Conn. App. 500 , 506-07 , 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996) (failure to comply with Practice Book rule re recusal deems record inadequate for review under first prong of Evans-Golding test ).

1999State v. Weber, 6 Conn. App. 407, 412-13 , 505 A.2d 1266 , cert. denied, 199 Conn. 810 , 508 A.2d 771 (1986).” State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578, 585 , 534 A.2d 1175 (1987); see also State v. Teel, 42 Conn. App. 500, 506-507 , 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996) (failure to comply with Practice Book § 997 deems record inadequate for review under first prong of Evans-Golding test).

33
State v. Gettesgreen
conn · 1996 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1997–2000
2 sentences

2000"Adherence to th[e]se procedures is necessary to obtain proper judicial review." State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578 , 585 , 534 A.2d 1175 (1987); see State v. Teel , 42 Conn. App. 500 , 506-07 , 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996) (failure to comply with Practice Book rule re recusal deems record inadequate for review under first prong of Evans-Golding test ).

1999State v. Weber, 6 Conn. App. 407, 412-13 , 505 A.2d 1266 , cert. denied, 199 Conn. 810 , 508 A.2d 771 (1986).” State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578, 585 , 534 A.2d 1175 (1987); see also State v. Teel, 42 Conn. App. 500, 506-507 , 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996) (failure to comply with Practice Book § 997 deems record inadequate for review under first prong of Evans-Golding test).

33
State v. Teelgreen
connappct · 1996 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1997–2000
2 sentences

2000"Adherence to th[e]se procedures is necessary to obtain proper judicial review." State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578 , 585 , 534 A.2d 1175 (1987); see State v. Teel , 42 Conn. App. 500 , 506-07 , 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996) (failure to comply with Practice Book rule re recusal deems record inadequate for review under first prong of Evans-Golding test ).

2000"Adherence to th[e]se procedures is necessary to obtain proper judicial review." State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578 , 585 , 534 A.2d 1175 (1987); see State v. Teel , 42 Conn. App. 500 , 506-07 , 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996) (failure to comply with Practice Book rule re recusal deems record inadequate for review under first prong of Evans-Golding test ).

33
State v. Robinsongreen
conn · 1993 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1996–1999
2 sentences

1999See State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 732 , 631 A.2d 288 (1993); State v. Merritt, 36 Conn. App. 76, 96 , 647 A.2d 1021 (1994), appeal dismissed, 233 Conn. 302 , 659 A.2d 706 (1995).” State v. Snead, 41 Conn. App. 584, 591 , 677 A.2d 446 (1996).

1999See State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 732 , 631 A.2d 288 (1993); State v. Merritt, 36 Conn. App. 76, 96 , 647 A.2d 1021 (1994), appeal dismissed, 233 Conn. 302 , 659 A.2d 706 (1995).” State v. Snead, 41 Conn. App. 584, 591 , 677 A.2d 446 (1996).

22
State v. Lucagreen
connappct · 1989 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (42)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Golding green
conn · 1989
2 sentences

1997State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989); State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69-70 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973).

1997State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989); State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69-70 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973).

61991–1997
State v. Evans green
conn · 1973
2 sentences

1997State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989); State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69-70 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973).

1997State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989); State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69-70 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973).

61991–1997
State v. Jones green
connappct · 1994
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

51997–2012
Pelarinos v. Henderson green
conn · 1994
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

51997–2012
State v. Mann green
conn · 1994
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

51997–2012
State v. Rodriguez green
conn · 2001
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
Cas Construction Co. v. Dainty Rubbish Service, Inc. green
conn · 2001
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
State v. Wright green
conn · 2001
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
1525 Highland Associates, LLC v. Fohl green
conn · 2001
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
State v. Garvin green
conn · 1997
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
Daniels v. Alander green
conn · 2004
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
State v. Spiegelmann green
conn · 2004
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
State v. Rodriguez neutral
connappct · 2000
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
State v. Wright green
connappct · 2001
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
State v. Spiegelmann green
connappct · 2004
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
Daniels v. Alander green
connappct · 2003
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
State of Connecticut v. Smith green
conn · 2009
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
State v. Rosario green
connappct · 2009
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

2012See, e.g., Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 274 Conn. 507, 532 , 876 A.2d 1178 (2005)] (declining to review claim under Golding when request appears for first time in reply brief); State v. Garvin, 242 Conn. 296, 312 , 699 A.2d 921 (1997) (‘[t]he reply brief is not the proper vehicle in which to provide this court with the basis for our review under an Evans-Golding analysis’ . . .); State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 (declining to review claim under Golding because request for such review made for first time in reply brief), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 17

32010–2012
State v. Santangelo green
conn · 1987
2 sentences

2000"Adherence to th[e]se procedures is necessary to obtain proper judicial review." State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578 , 585 , 534 A.2d 1175 (1987); see State v. Teel , 42 Conn. App. 500 , 506-07 , 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996) (failure to comply with Practice Book rule re recusal deems record inadequate for review under first prong of Evans-Golding test ).

2000"Adherence to th[e]se procedures is necessary to obtain proper judicial review." State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578 , 585 , 534 A.2d 1175 (1987); see State v. Teel , 42 Conn. App. 500 , 506-07 , 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996) (failure to comply with Practice Book rule re recusal deems record inadequate for review under first prong of Evans-Golding test ).

21999–2000
State v. Williams green
conn · 1987
2 sentences

1999State v. Williams , 204 Conn. 523 , 537 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987).

1999State v. Williams , 204 Conn. 523 , 537 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987).

21997–1999
State v. Merritt green
conn · 1995
2 sentences

1999See State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 732 , 631 A.2d 288 (1993); State v. Merritt, 36 Conn. App. 76, 96 , 647 A.2d 1021 (1994), appeal dismissed, 233 Conn. 302 , 659 A.2d 706 (1995).” State v. Snead, 41 Conn. App. 584, 591 , 677 A.2d 446 (1996).

1999See State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 732 , 631 A.2d 288 (1993); State v. Merritt, 36 Conn. App. 76, 96 , 647 A.2d 1021 (1994), appeal dismissed, 233 Conn. 302 , 659 A.2d 706 (1995).” State v. Snead, 41 Conn. App. 584, 591 , 677 A.2d 446 (1996).

21996–1999
State v. Weber green
connappct · 1986
2 sentences

1999State v. Weber, 6 Conn. App. 407, 412-13 , 505 A.2d 1266 , cert. denied, 199 Conn. 810 , 508 A.2d 771 (1986).” State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578, 585 , 534 A.2d 1175 (1987); see also State v. Teel, 42 Conn. App. 500, 506-507 , 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996) (failure to comply with Practice Book § 997 deems record inadequate for review under first prong of Evans-Golding test).

1999State v. Weber, 6 Conn. App. 407, 412-13 , 505 A.2d 1266 , cert. denied, 199 Conn. 810 , 508 A.2d 771 (1986).” State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578, 585 , 534 A.2d 1175 (1987); see also State v. Teel, 42 Conn. App. 500, 506-507 , 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996) (failure to comply with Practice Book § 997 deems record inadequate for review under first prong of Evans-Golding test).

21997–1999
State v. Merritt green
connappct · 1994
2 sentences

1999See State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 732 , 631 A.2d 288 (1993); State v. Merritt, 36 Conn. App. 76, 96 , 647 A.2d 1021 (1994), appeal dismissed, 233 Conn. 302 , 659 A.2d 706 (1995).” State v. Snead, 41 Conn. App. 584, 591 , 677 A.2d 446 (1996).

1999See State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 732 , 631 A.2d 288 (1993); State v. Merritt, 36 Conn. App. 76, 96 , 647 A.2d 1021 (1994), appeal dismissed, 233 Conn. 302 , 659 A.2d 706 (1995).” State v. Snead, 41 Conn. App. 584, 591 , 677 A.2d 446 (1996).

21996–1999
Allen v. Northeast Utilities green
conn · 1986
2 sentences

1999State v. Weber, 6 Conn. App. 407, 412-13 , 505 A.2d 1266 , cert. denied, 199 Conn. 810 , 508 A.2d 771 (1986).” State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578, 585 , 534 A.2d 1175 (1987); see also State v. Teel, 42 Conn. App. 500, 506-507 , 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996) (failure to comply with Practice Book § 997 deems record inadequate for review under first prong of Evans-Golding test).

1999State v. Weber, 6 Conn. App. 407, 412-13 , 505 A.2d 1266 , cert. denied, 199 Conn. 810 , 508 A.2d 771 (1986).” State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578, 585 , 534 A.2d 1175 (1987); see also State v. Teel, 42 Conn. App. 500, 506-507 , 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996) (failure to comply with Practice Book § 997 deems record inadequate for review under first prong of Evans-Golding test).

11999–1999
State v. Snead green
connappct · 1996
2 sentences

1999See State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 732 , 631 A.2d 288 (1993); State v. Merritt, 36 Conn. App. 76, 96 , 647 A.2d 1021 (1994), appeal dismissed, 233 Conn. 302 , 659 A.2d 706 (1995).” State v. Snead, 41 Conn. App. 584, 591 , 677 A.2d 446 (1996).

1999See State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 732 , 631 A.2d 288 (1993); State v. Merritt, 36 Conn. App. 76, 96 , 647 A.2d 1021 (1994), appeal dismissed, 233 Conn. 302 , 659 A.2d 706 (1995).” State v. Snead, 41 Conn. App. 584, 591 , 677 A.2d 446 (1996).

11999–1999
State v. McIver green
conn · 1986
11997–1997
Packtor v. Seppala & AHO Construction Co. green
conn · 1994
11997–1997
State v. Batson green
conn · 1994
11997–1997
State v. Wideman green
conn · 1995
11997–1997
State v. Davis green
conn · 1995
11997–1997
State v. Cassidy green
conn · 1996
11997–1997
Curry v. Burns green
conn · 1993
11997–1997
State v. Graham green
connappct · 1994
11997–1997
State v. Wideman green
connappct · 1994
11997–1997
Bowersox v. Driscoll green
scotus · 1996
11997–1997
Movsesian v. Hamer green
scotus · 1996
11997–1997
State v. Jarrett green
conn · 1991
11993–1993
State v. Robinson green
conn · 1987
11991–1991
State v. Whelan green
conn · 1986
11991–1991
Bowen v. Peoples green
scotus · 1986
11991–1991

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-35 (4) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-278 (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-167a (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-19 (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-55 (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-62 (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-7 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check