648 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2026 115 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sauciergreen2 sentences2022The standard of review applica- ble to both of these claims is well established. ‘‘To the extent [that] a trial court’s admission of evidence is based on an interpretation of the [c]ode of [e]vidence, our standard of review is plenary.’’ State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207, 218 , 926 A.2d 633 (2007). ‘‘We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence, if premised on a correct view of the law, however, for an abuse of discretion.’’ Id. ‘‘Under the abuse of discretion standard [an appellate court] make[s] every reasonable presump- tion in favor of upholding the trial court’s rulings, con- side 2022The standard of review applica- ble to both of these claims is well established. ‘‘To the extent [that] a trial court’s admission of evidence is based on an interpretation of the [c]ode of [e]vidence, our standard of review is plenary.’’ State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207, 218 , 926 A.2d 633 (2007). ‘‘We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence, if premised on a correct view of the law, however, for an abuse of discretion.’’ Id. ‘‘Under the abuse of discretion standard [an appellate court] make[s] every reasonable presump- tion in favor of upholding the trial court’s rulings, con- side | 3 | 7 |
Ramin v. Ramingreen2 sentences2026If we answer that question affirmatively, we then review the trial court’s determination that the violation was wilful under the abuse of discretion standard.” (Cita- tions omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Puff v. Puff, 334 Conn. 341 , 364–66, 222 A.3d 493 (2020); see also Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324, 336 , 915 A.2d 790 (2007) (“the abuse of discretion standard applies to a trial court’s decision on a motion for contempt”). 2026If we answer that question affirmatively, we then review the trial court’s determination that the violation was wilful under the abuse of discretion standard.” (Cita- tions omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Puff v. Puff, 334 Conn. 341 , 364–66, 222 A.3d 493 (2020); see also Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324, 336 , 915 A.2d 790 (2007) (“the abuse of discretion standard applies to a trial court’s decision on a motion for contempt”). | 3 | 6 |
| State v. Orrgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Wilderman v. Powersgreen | 3 | 3 |
Card v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2021You just made it very clear that you have no confidence in his ability to represent you. ‘‘[The Defendant]: I don’t want to be self-represented though.’’ We first set forth our standard of review. ‘‘Decisions regarding the withdrawal of counsel are evaluated under an abuse of discretion standard.’’ Tolman v. Banach, 82 Conn. App. 263, 265 , 843 A.2d 650 (2004); see also State v. Fernandez, 254 Conn. 637, 647 , 758 A.2d 842 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 913 , 121 S. Ct. 1247 , 149 L. 2012The trial judge is the arbiter of the many circumstances which may arise during the trial in which his [or her] function is to assure a fair and just outcome.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fernandez, 254 Conn. 637, 647-48 , 758 A.2d 842 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 913 , 121 S. Ct. 1247 , 149 L. | 2 | 4 |
Erie County v. Erie County Retirees Ass'ngreen2 sentences2021You just made it very clear that you have no confidence in his ability to represent you. ‘‘[The Defendant]: I don’t want to be self-represented though.’’ We first set forth our standard of review. ‘‘Decisions regarding the withdrawal of counsel are evaluated under an abuse of discretion standard.’’ Tolman v. Banach, 82 Conn. App. 263, 265 , 843 A.2d 650 (2004); see also State v. Fernandez, 254 Conn. 637, 647 , 758 A.2d 842 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 913 , 121 S. Ct. 1247 , 149 L. 2021You just made it very clear that you have no confidence in his ability to represent you. ‘‘[The Defendant]: I don’t want to be self-represented though.’’ We first set forth our standard of review. ‘‘Decisions regarding the withdrawal of counsel are evaluated under an abuse of discretion standard.’’ Tolman v. Banach, 82 Conn. App. 263, 265 , 843 A.2d 650 (2004); see also State v. Fernandez, 254 Conn. 637, 647 , 758 A.2d 842 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 913 , 121 S. Ct. 1247 , 149 L. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Fernandezgreen2 sentences2021You just made it very clear that you have no confidence in his ability to represent you. ‘‘[The Defendant]: I don’t want to be self-represented though.’’ We first set forth our standard of review. ‘‘Decisions regarding the withdrawal of counsel are evaluated under an abuse of discretion standard.’’ Tolman v. Banach, 82 Conn. App. 263, 265 , 843 A.2d 650 (2004); see also State v. Fernandez, 254 Conn. 637, 647 , 758 A.2d 842 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 913 , 121 S. Ct. 1247 , 149 L. 2021You just made it very clear that you have no confidence in his ability to represent you. ‘‘[The Defendant]: I don’t want to be self-represented though.’’ We first set forth our standard of review. ‘‘Decisions regarding the withdrawal of counsel are evaluated under an abuse of discretion standard.’’ Tolman v. Banach, 82 Conn. App. 263, 265 , 843 A.2d 650 (2004); see also State v. Fernandez, 254 Conn. 637, 647 , 758 A.2d 842 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 913 , 121 S. Ct. 1247 , 149 L. | 2 | 4 |
Otwell v. Bulducgreen2 sentences2015See Otwell v. Bulduc, 76 Conn. App. 775, 777 , 821 A.2d 793 (2003). 2015See Otwell v. Bulduc, 76 Conn. App. 775, 777 , 821 A.2d 793 (2003). | 2 | 4 |
Spearhead Construction Corp. v. Biancogreen2 sentences2006State v. Hansen, 39 Conn. App. 384, 399 , 666 A.2d 421 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 928 , 667 A.2d 554 (1995). 2006State v. Hansen, 39 Conn. App. 384, 399 , 666 A.2d 421 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 928 , 667 A.2d 554 (1995). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Hansengreen2 sentences2006State v. Hansen, 39 Conn. App. 384, 399 , 666 A.2d 421 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 928 , 667 A.2d 554 (1995). 2006State v. Hansen, 39 Conn. App. 384, 399 , 666 A.2d 421 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 928 , 667 A.2d 554 (1995). | 2 | 4 |
| In Re Leah S.green | 2 | 3 |
| Rosario v. United Statesgreen | 2 | 3 |
| Chavez-Miranda v. United Statesgreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Dehaneygreen | 2 | 3 |
| Gravius v. Kleingreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. DesLauriergreen | 2 | 3 |
State v. Tabonegreen2 sentences2023Ed. 2d 136 (2021). ‘‘[A] claim that the trial court improperly denied a defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sen- tence is [typically] reviewed pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard.’’ State v. Tabone, 279 Conn. 527, 534 , 902 A.2d 1058 (2006). 2023Ed. 2d 136 (2021). ‘‘[A] claim that the trial court improperly denied a defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sen- tence is [typically] reviewed pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard.’’ State v. Tabone, 279 Conn. 527, 534 , 902 A.2d 1058 (2006). | 1 | 12 |
Alliance Partners, Inc. v. Voltarc Technologies, Inc.green2 sentences2020Without sacrificing fairness, our Appellate Court colleagues handle hundreds more appeals annu- ally than this court, with a dispatch we aspire to emu- late. ‘‘[A]ppellate tribunals must exercise their discre- tion to determine whether a late appeal should be permitted,’’ and ‘‘we review the Appellate Court’s deci- sion under the abuse of discretion standard.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Alliance Partners, Inc. v. Voltarc Technologies, Inc., 263 Conn. 204, 210 , 820 A.2d 224 (2003). 2020Without sacrificing fairness, our Appellate Court colleagues handle hundreds more appeals annu- ally than this court, with a dispatch we aspire to emu- late. ‘‘[A]ppellate tribunals must exercise their discre- tion to determine whether a late appeal should be permitted,’’ and ‘‘we review the Appellate Court’s deci- sion under the abuse of discretion standard.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Alliance Partners, Inc. v. Voltarc Technologies, Inc., 263 Conn. 204, 210 , 820 A.2d 224 (2003). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2016Appellate review of the denial of a request to discharge appointed counsel is governed by the abuse of discretion standard; State v. Gonzalez, 205 Conn. 673 , 684, 535 A.2d 345 (1987) ; which requires this court to indulge every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of the court's action. 2016Appellate review of the denial of a request to discharge appointed counsel is governed by the abuse of discretion standard; State v. Gonzalez, 205 Conn. 673 , 684, 535 A.2d 345 (1987) ; which requires this court to indulge every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of the court's action. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Lugogreen2 sentences2016Ed. 2d 1095 (1995). ‘‘[W]hen reviewing the action of a trial court under an abuse of discretion standard, we should read the record to support, rather than contradict, [the trial court’s ruling].’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Lugo, 266 Conn. 674 , 692 n.16, 835 A.2d 451 (2003); accord State v. Orr, 291 Conn. 642, 667 , 969 A.2d 750 (2009) (‘‘[i]n determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did’’ [internal quotation marks omitted] ); State v. Skakel, 276 Conn. 633, 724 , 888 A.2d 985 (‘‘[i] 2016Ed. 2d 1095 (1995). ‘‘[W]hen reviewing the action of a trial court under an abuse of discretion standard, we should read the record to support, rather than contradict, [the trial court’s ruling].’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Lugo, 266 Conn. 674 , 692 n.16, 835 A.2d 451 (2003); accord State v. Orr, 291 Conn. 642, 667 , 969 A.2d 750 (2009) (‘‘[i]n determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did’’ [internal quotation marks omitted] ); State v. Skakel, 276 Conn. 633, 724 , 888 A.2d 985 (‘‘[i] | 1 | 4 |
Bruno v. Gellergreen2 sentences2016"Whether the court should have considered ... [an] affidavit submitted by [the movant for summary judgment] presents an evidentiary issue to which we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review." Bruno v. Geller, 136 Conn.App. 707 , 716, 46 A.3d 974 , cert. denied, 306 Conn. 905 , 52 A.3d 732 (2012) ; accord Wilderman v. Powers, 110 Conn.App. 819 , 828, 956 A.2d 613 (2008) ; Barlow v. Palmer, 96 Conn.App. 88 , 91, 898 A.2d 835 (2006). 2016"Whether the court should have considered ... [an] affidavit submitted by [the movant for summary judgment] presents an evidentiary issue to which we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review." Bruno v. Geller, 136 Conn.App. 707 , 716, 46 A.3d 974 , cert. denied, 306 Conn. 905 , 52 A.3d 732 (2012) ; accord Wilderman v. Powers, 110 Conn.App. 819 , 828, 956 A.2d 613 (2008) ; Barlow v. Palmer, 96 Conn.App. 88 , 91, 898 A.2d 835 (2006). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2010“We review claims that the court improperly denied the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henderson, 93 Conn. App. 61, 66 , 888 A.2d 132 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 927 , 895 A.2d 800 (2006). 2010“We review claims that the court improperly denied the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henderson, 93 Conn. App. 61, 66 , 888 A.2d 132 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 927 , 895 A.2d 800 (2006). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2010“We review claims that the court improperly denied the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henderson, 93 Conn. App. 61, 66 , 888 A.2d 132 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 927 , 895 A.2d 800 (2006). 2009“We review claims that the court improperly denied the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henderson, 93 Conn. App. 61, 66 , 888 A.2d 132 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 927 , 895 A.2d 800 (2006). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Kelseygreen2 sentences2010“We review claims that the court improperly denied the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henderson, 93 Conn. App. 61, 66 , 888 A.2d 132 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 927 , 895 A.2d 800 (2006). 2009“We review claims that the court improperly denied the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henderson, 93 Conn. App. 61, 66 , 888 A.2d 132 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 927 , 895 A.2d 800 (2006). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Hammondgreen2 sentences2004Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 276 , 828 A.2d 64 (2003); State v. Hammond, 221 Conn. 264, 267-70 , 604 A.2d 793 (1992). 2004Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 276 , 828 A.2d 64 (2003); State v. Hammond, 221 Conn. 264, 267-70 , 604 A.2d 793 (1992). | 1 | 4 |
| Franklin Credit Management Corp. v. Nicholasgreen | 1 | 3 |
| GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Fordgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Franklin Credit Management Corp. v. Nicholasgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Gauthiergreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Milnergreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Hinesgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Klein v. Norwalk Hospitalgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Nicholsongreen | 1 | 3 |
| Shabazz v. Stategreen | 1 | 3 |
| Walter v. Stategreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Lucasgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.green | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Delgadogreen | 1 | 3 |
| Jackson v. Water Pollution Control Authoritygreen | 1 | 2 |
| Eslami v. Eslamigreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, [w]e will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Thus, our] review of such rulings is limited to the questions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 , 252–53, 828 A.2d 64 (2003). 2022Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, [w]e will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Thus, our] review of such rulings is limited to the questions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 , 252–53, 828 A.2d 64 (2003). | 16 | 2004–2022 |
Schilberg Integrated Metals Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences2011“When reviewing claims under an abuse of discretion standard, the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Schilberg Integrated Metals Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 263 Conn. 245, 274 , 819 A.2d 773 (2003); see also Rocque v. Light Sources, Inc., 275 Conn. 420, 442 , 881 A.2d 230 (2005). 2011“When reviewing claims under an abuse of discretion standard, the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Schilberg Integrated Metals Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 263 Conn. 245, 274 , 819 A.2d 773 (2003); see also Rocque v. Light Sources, Inc., 275 Conn. 420, 442 , 881 A.2d 230 (2005). | 9 | 2003–2012 |
Landry v. Spitz
green
2 sentences2024The question of whether the underlying order is clear and unambigu- ous is a legal inquiry subject to de novo review.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Mitchell v. Bogonos, 218 Conn. App. 59 , 68–69, 290 A.3d 825 (2023). ‘‘[I]f we conclude that the underlying court order was suffi- ciently clear and unambiguous, we must then determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing, or refusing to issue, a judgment of contempt, which includes a review of the trial court’s determination of whether the violation was wilful or excused by a good faith dispute or misunderstanding.’’ 2024The question of whether the underlying order is clear and unambigu- ous is a legal inquiry subject to de novo review.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Mitchell v. Bogonos, 218 Conn. App. 59 , 68–69, 290 A.3d 825 (2023). ‘‘[I]f we conclude that the underlying court order was suffi- ciently clear and unambiguous, we must then determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing, or refusing to issue, a judgment of contempt, which includes a review of the trial court’s determination of whether the violation was wilful or excused by a good faith dispute or misunderstanding.’’ | 7 | 2007–2024 |
Puff v. Puff
green
2 sentences2026If we answer that question affirmatively, we then review the trial court’s determination that the violation was wilful under the abuse of discretion standard.” (Cita- tions omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Puff v. Puff, 334 Conn. 341 , 364–66, 222 A.3d 493 (2020); see also Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324, 336 , 915 A.2d 790 (2007) (“the abuse of discretion standard applies to a trial court’s decision on a motion for contempt”). 2025It is the burden of the party seeking an order of contempt to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, both a clear and unambiguous directive to the alleged contemnor and the alleged contemnor’s wilful noncompliance with that directive. . . . [T]he trial court’s determination that the violation was wilful [is governed by] the abuse of discretion standard.’’ (Cita- tions omitted.) Puff v. Puff, 334 Conn. 341 , 365–66, 222 A.3d 493 (2020); see also Ramin v. Ramin, 281 Conn. 324, 336 , 915 A.2d 790 (2007) (‘‘[t]he abuse of discretion standard applies to a trial court’s decision on a motion for co | 5 | 2022–2026 |
PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Mercede
green
2 sentences2021In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omit- ted.) PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279 , 328–29, 838 A.2d 135 (2004). 2021In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omit- ted.) PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279 , 328–29, 838 A.2d 135 (2004). | 5 | 2004–2021 |
Munro v. Munoz
green
2 sentences2019Generally, we apply the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s decision to deny an award of attorney’s fees. ‘‘Under the abuse of discretion stan- dard of review, [w]e will make every reasonable pre- sumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Thus, our] review of such rulings is limited to the questions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclu- sion that it did.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Munro v. Munoz, 146 Conn. 2019Generally, we apply the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s decision to deny an award of attorney’s fees. ‘‘Under the abuse of discretion stan- dard of review, [w]e will make every reasonable pre- sumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Thus, our] review of such rulings is limited to the questions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclu- sion that it did.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Munro v. Munoz, 146 Conn. | 4 | 2017–2019 |
Simms v. Chaisson
green
2 sentences2013As a general matter, under the abuse of discretion standard, “[w]e will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Thus, our] review of such rulings is limited to the questions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Simms v. Chaisson, 277 Conn. 319, 325 , 890 A.2d 548 (2006). 2013As a general matter, under the abuse of discretion standard, “[w]e will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Thus, our] review of such rulings is limited to the questions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Simms v. Chaisson, 277 Conn. 319, 325 , 890 A.2d 548 (2006). | 4 | 2006–2013 |
Murray v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2008When reviewing a decision for an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Murray v. Murray, 65 Conn. App. 90, 102 , 781 A.2d 511 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 931 , 783 A.2d 1029 (2001). 2007When reviewing a decision for an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Murray v. Murray, 65 Conn. App. 90, 102 , 781 A.2d 511 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 931 , 783 A.2d 1029 (2001). | 4 | 2002–2008 |
Craig v. Driscoll
green
2 sentences2008When reviewing a decision for an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Murray v. Murray, 65 Conn. App. 90, 102 , 781 A.2d 511 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 931 , 783 A.2d 1029 (2001). 2007When reviewing a decision for an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Murray v. Murray, 65 Conn. App. 90, 102 , 781 A.2d 511 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 931 , 783 A.2d 1029 (2001). | 4 | 2002–2008 |
Murray v. Murray
green
2 sentences2008When reviewing a decision for an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Murray v. Murray, 65 Conn. App. 90, 102 , 781 A.2d 511 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 931 , 783 A.2d 1029 (2001). 2008When reviewing a decision for an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Murray v. Murray, 65 Conn. App. 90, 102 , 781 A.2d 511 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 931 , 783 A.2d 1029 (2001). | 4 | 2002–2008 |
State v. Pereira
green
2 sentences2003A “We review claims of improper admission of expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 120 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). “[T]he trial court has wide discretion in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony and, unless that discretion has been abused or the ruling involves a clear misconception of the law, the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henry, 72 Conn. App. 640, 654 , 805 A.2d 823 , cert denied, 2 2003A “We review claims of improper admission of expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 120 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). “[T]he trial court has wide discretion in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony and, unless that discretion has been abused or the ruling involves a clear misconception of the law, the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henry, 72 Conn. App. 640, 654 , 805 A.2d 823 , cert denied, 2 | 4 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Pereira
green
2 sentences2003A “We review claims of improper admission of expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 120 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). “[T]he trial court has wide discretion in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony and, unless that discretion has been abused or the ruling involves a clear misconception of the law, the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henry, 72 Conn. App. 640, 654 , 805 A.2d 823 , cert denied, 2 2003“We review evidentiary claims pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 117 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). | 4 | 2003–2003 |
In re Salvatore P.
green
2 sentences2003A “We review claims of improper admission of expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 120 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). “[T]he trial court has wide discretion in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony and, unless that discretion has been abused or the ruling involves a clear misconception of the law, the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henry, 72 Conn. App. 640, 654 , 805 A.2d 823 , cert denied, 2 2003“We review evidentiary claims pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 117 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). | 4 | 2003–2003 |
| Sablosky v. Sablosky green | 3 | 2007–2024 |
| Millbrook Owners Ass'n v. Hamilton Standard green | 3 | 2015–2022 |
| Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. City of New London green | 3 | 2012–2022 |
| Noel v. RIBBITS, LLC neutral | 3 | 2012–2022 |
| State v. Lawrence green | 3 | 2017–2021 |
| Evans v. Taylor green | 3 | 2004–2021 |
| State v. Golding green | 3 | 2002–2019 |
| Szymonik v. Szymonik green | 3 | 2017–2019 |
| State v. Rice green | 3 | 2017–2019 |
| State v. Baptiste green | 3 | 2018–2019 |
| Gianetti v. NORWALK HOSP. green | 3 | 2012–2019 |
| State v. Vasquez green | 3 | 2018–2019 |
| State v. Baker green | 3 | 2017–2019 |
| State v. Pagan green | 3 | 2006–2018 |
| Mercury Mortgage Co. v. Couloute green | 3 | 2006–2018 |
| Dacruz v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. green | 3 | 2004–2018 |
| State v. Pagan green | 3 | 2006–2018 |
| Richards v. Trudeau green | 3 | 2003–2017 |
| State v. Skakel green | 3 | 2010–2016 |
| MOASSER v. Becker green | 3 | 2011–2013 |
| State v. Johnson green | 3 | 2001–2010 |
| State v. Hernandez green | 3 | 2002–2008 |
| Wendt v. Wendt green | 3 | 2002–2004 |
| Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc. green | 3 | 2002–2004 |
| Wendt v. Wendt green | 3 | 2002–2004 |
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.