Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
25 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
California Insurance Company v. A. L. Allen and Dovie Moore Allengreen2 sentences1992Co. v. Allen, 235 F.2d 178, 180 (5th Cir. 1956).’ United States v. Winston, supra. Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal. 1986Co. v. Allen, 235 F.2d 178, 180 (5th Cir. 1956).” United States v. Winston, supra. Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Grahamgreen2 sentences2025Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should 27 The defendant describes the statement as ‘‘hearsay within hearsay’’ because the victim’s statement was relayed to McCullough through a dis- patch officer. 28 The defendant does not explain how the trial court’s recollection of defense counsel’s cross-examination was incorrect. 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 55 State v. Trice balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown, 309 Conn. 469 , 479, 72 A.3d 48 (2013); see 2025Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should 27 The defendant describes the statement as ‘‘hearsay within hearsay’’ because the victim’s statement was relayed to McCullough through a dis- patch officer. 28 The defendant does not explain how the trial court’s recollection of defense counsel’s cross-examination was incorrect. 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 55 State v. Trice balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown, 309 Conn. 469 , 479, 72 A.3d 48 (2013); see | 1 | 5 |
State v. Paulinogreen2 sentences2025Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should 27 The defendant describes the statement as ‘‘hearsay within hearsay’’ because the victim’s statement was relayed to McCullough through a dis- patch officer. 28 The defendant does not explain how the trial court’s recollection of defense counsel’s cross-examination was incorrect. 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 55 State v. Trice balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown, 309 Conn. 469 , 479, 72 A.3d 48 (2013); see 2025Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should 27 The defendant describes the statement as ‘‘hearsay within hearsay’’ because the victim’s statement was relayed to McCullough through a dis- patch officer. 28 The defendant does not explain how the trial court’s recollection of defense counsel’s cross-examination was incorrect. 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 55 State v. Trice balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown, 309 Conn. 469 , 479, 72 A.3d 48 (2013); see | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Frank W. Winston
green
2 sentences1992Co. v. Allen, 235 F.2d 178, 180 (5th Cir. 1956).’ United States v. Winston, supra. Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal. 1986Co. v. Allen, 235 F.2d 178, 180 (5th Cir. 1956).” United States v. Winston, supra. Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal. | 5 | 1986–1999 |
People v. Arends
green
2 sentences1999Id., 1241-42 ; People v. Arends, 155 Cal. App. 2d 496, 509 , 318 P.2d 532 (1957).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Moore, supra, 49 Conn. App. 20 -21. 1999Id., 1241-42 ; People v. Arends, 155 Cal. App. 2d 496, 509 , 318 P.2d 532 (1957).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Moore, supra, 49 Conn. App. 20 -21. | 5 | 1986–1999 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2025Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should 27 The defendant describes the statement as ‘‘hearsay within hearsay’’ because the victim’s statement was relayed to McCullough through a dis- patch officer. 28 The defendant does not explain how the trial court’s recollection of defense counsel’s cross-examination was incorrect. 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 55 State v. Trice balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown, 309 Conn. 469 , 479, 72 A.3d 48 (2013); see 2025Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should 27 The defendant describes the statement as ‘‘hearsay within hearsay’’ because the victim’s statement was relayed to McCullough through a dis- patch officer. 28 The defendant does not explain how the trial court’s recollection of defense counsel’s cross-examination was incorrect. 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 55 State v. Trice balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown, 309 Conn. 469 , 479, 72 A.3d 48 (2013); see | 4 | 2014–2025 |
State v. Carpenter
green
2 sentences2011We will not overturn the trial court’s decision unless the trial court has abused its discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 822 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1025 , 126 S. Ct. 1578 , 164 L. 2011We will not overturn the trial court’s decision unless the trial court has abused its discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 822 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1025 , 126 S. Ct. 1578 , 164 L. | 2 | 2005–2011 |
State v. McCarthy
green
2 sentences2008Cf. State v. McCarthy, 197 Conn. 166, 173 , 496 A.2d 190 (1985). [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal. 2008Cf. State v. McCarthy, 197 Conn. 166, 173 , 496 A.2d 190 (1985). [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Colon
green
2 sentences2006Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L. 2006Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Miller-Bates v. Wachovia Bank
green
2 sentences2007Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 187 . 2006Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
State v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences2002Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hernandez, 224 Conn. 196, 206-207 , 618 A.2d 494 (1992). 2002Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hernandez, 224 Conn. 196, 206-207 , 618 A.2d 494 (1992). | 2 | 1998–2002 |
State v. Solomon
green
2 sentences2025The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant further inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Solomon, 141 Conn. App. 270 , 278-79, 60 A.3d 1039 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 939 , 66 A.3d 881 2025The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant further inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Solomon, 141 Conn. App. 270 , 278-79, 60 A.3d 1039 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 939 , 66 A.3d 881 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2013The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant farther inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Phillips, 102 Conn. App. 716, 733-34 , 927 A.2d 931 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 2013The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant farther inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Phillips, 102 Conn. App. 716, 733-34 , 927 A.2d 931 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2013The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant farther inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Phillips, 102 Conn. App. 716, 733-34 , 927 A.2d 931 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 2013The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant farther inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Phillips, 102 Conn. App. 716, 733-34 , 927 A.2d 931 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Thornton v. California
green
1 sentence2012We will not overturn the trial court’s decision unless the trial court has abused its discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. *558 Upon review of the evidence in the present case, we conclude that the trial court improperly admitted Thomas’ testimony concerning the defendant’s statement. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Ellis v. Emery
green
2 sentences2011We will not overturn the trial court’s decision unless the trial court has abused its discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 822 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1025 , 126 S. Ct. 1578 , 164 L. 2011We will not overturn the trial court’s decision unless the trial court has abused its discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 822 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1025 , 126 S. Ct. 1578 , 164 L. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Colon v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences2006Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L. 2006Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Meikle
green
2 sentences2002“In determining whether it should allow further inquiry into the subject matter, the court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal in the form of redirect.” State v. Meikle, 60 Conn. App. 802, 815-16 , 761 A.2d 247 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 947 , 769 A.2d 63 (2001). 2002“In determining whether it should allow further inquiry into the subject matter, the court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal in the form of redirect.” State v. Meikle, 60 Conn. App. 802, 815-16 , 761 A.2d 247 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 947 , 769 A.2d 63 (2001). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Meikle
green
2 sentences2002“In determining whether it should allow further inquiry into the subject matter, the court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal in the form of redirect.” State v. Meikle, 60 Conn. App. 802, 815-16 , 761 A.2d 247 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 947 , 769 A.2d 63 (2001). 2002“In determining whether it should allow further inquiry into the subject matter, the court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal in the form of redirect.” State v. Meikle, 60 Conn. App. 802, 815-16 , 761 A.2d 247 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 947 , 769 A.2d 63 (2001). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Moore
green
2 sentences2000State v. Moore, 49 Conn. App. 13, 20-21 , 713 A.2d 859 (1998). 2000State v. Moore, 49 Conn. App. 13, 20-21 , 713 A.2d 859 (1998). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.