light rule in Connecticut

1977It is true that in a capital case, which this is not, "[a] 11 of the ... rules [relating to new trials] are qualified ... in the light of the principle laid down in Andersen v. State, 43 Conn. 514, 517 , that `in a case where human life is at stake, justice, as well as humanity, requires us to pause and consider before we apply those rules in all their rigor.'" Taborsky v. State, 142 Conn. 619, 623 , 116 A.2d 433 ; Hamlin v. State, supra, 94.

1977It is true that in a capital case, which this is not, “[a] 11 of the . . . rules [relating to new trials] are qualified ... in the light of the principle laid down in Andersen v. State, 43 Conn. 514, 517 , that fin a case where human life is at stake, justice, as well as humanity, requires us to pause and consider before we apply those rules in all their rigor.’ ” Taborsky v. State, 142 Conn. 619, 623 , 116 A.2d 433 ; Hamlin v. State, supra, 94.

2017The briefing was cast in the light of a claim that our state constitution provided greater protection than the federal constitution and, accordingly, contained an analysis pursuant to this court's opinion in State v. Geisler , 222 Conn. 672 , 684-86, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992).

2017The briefing was cast in the light of a claim that our state constitution provided greater protection than the federal constitution and, accordingly, contained an analysis pursuant to this court's opinion in State v. Geisler , 222 Conn. 672 , 684-86, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992).

2004We ought not, and will not, declare a statute to be unconstitutional unless our judgment is formed in the light of this rule of our law: It is our duty to approach the question with caution, examine it with infinite care, make every presumption and intendment in its favor, and sustain the Act unless its invalidity is, in our judgment, beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) City Recycling, Inc. v. State, 247 Conn. 751, 758 , 725 A.2d 937 (1999).

2004We ought not, and will not, declare a statute to be unconstitutional unless our judgment is formed in the light of this rule of our law: It is our duty to approach the question with caution, examine it with infinite care, make every presumption and intendment in its favor, and sustain the Act unless its invalidity is, in our judgment, beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) City Recycling, Inc. v. State, 247 Conn. 751, 758 , 725 A.2d 937 (1999).

2003Co., 241 Conn. 282, 306-307 , 695 A.2d 1051 (1997).

2003Co., 241 Conn. 282, 306-307 , 695 A.2d 1051 (1997).

2003We ought not, and will not, declare a statute to be unconstitutional unless our judgment is formed in the light of this rule of our law: It is our duty to approach the question with caution, examine it with infinite care, make every presumption and intendment in its favor, and sustain the [a]ct unless its invalidity is, in our judgment, beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, 249 Conn. 296, 320 , 732 A.2d 144 (1999); accord Hall v. Gilbert & Bennett Mfg.

2003We ought not, and will not, declare a statute to be unconstitutional unless our judgment is formed in the light of this rule of our law: It is our duty to approach the question with caution, examine it with infinite care, make every presumption and intendment in its favor, and sustain the [a]ct unless its invalidity is, in our judgment, beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, 249 Conn. 296, 320 , 732 A.2d 144 (1999); accord Hall v. Gilbert & Bennett Mfg.

2002When viewed in the light of the factors indicating a quasi-judicial body, set out in Kelley v. Bonney , 221 Conn. 549 , 567 , these sections clearly indicate that both Boards have the authority and power to act as quasi-judicial bodies.

1999State v. Zach, [ 198 Conn. 168, 177-78 , 502 A.2d 896 (1985)]; see also State v. Madera, [ 198 Conn. 92, 105 , 503 A.2d 136 (1985)].” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hall v. Gilbert & Bennett Mfg.

1999State v. Zach, [ 198 Conn. 168, 177-78 , 502 A.2d 896 (1985)]; see also State v. Madera, [ 198 Conn. 92, 105 , 503 A.2d 136 (1985)].” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hall v. Gilbert & Bennett Mfg.

1990See Shavoughn K., 13 Conn. App. 91 , 100 ; In Re Barbara J., 215 Conn. 31 , 47 .

1985Brush v. Sixth Taxing District, 104 Conn. 192, 205 , 132 A. 561 (1926); Beccia v. Waterbury, 192 Conn. 127, 133 , 470 A.2d 1202 (1984); Logan v. O’Neill, 187 Conn. 721, 729 , 448 A.2d 1306 (1982); Walkinshaw v. O’Brien, 130 Conn. 122, 134 , 32 A.2d 547 (1943).

1985Brush v. Sixth Taxing District, 104 Conn. 192, 205 , 132 A. 561 (1926); Beccia v. Waterbury, 192 Conn. 127, 133 , 470 A.2d 1202 (1984); Logan v. O’Neill, 187 Conn. 721, 729 , 448 A.2d 1306 (1982); Walkinshaw v. O’Brien, 130 Conn. 122, 134 , 32 A.2d 547 (1943).

1985Brush v. Sixth Taxing District, 104 Conn. 192, 205 , 132 A. 561 (1926); Beccia v. Waterbury, 192 Conn. 127, 133 , 470 A.2d 1202 (1984); Logan v. O’Neill, 187 Conn. 721, 729 , 448 A.2d 1306 (1982); Walkinshaw v. O’Brien, 130 Conn. 122, 134 , 32 A.2d 547 (1943).

1985Brush v. Sixth Taxing District, 104 Conn. 192, 205 , 132 A. 561 (1926); Beccia v. Waterbury, 192 Conn. 127, 133 , 470 A.2d 1202 (1984); Logan v. O’Neill, 187 Conn. 721, 729 , 448 A.2d 1306 (1982); Walkinshaw v. O’Brien, 130 Conn. 122, 134 , 32 A.2d 547 (1943).

1985Brush v. Sixth Taxing District, 104 Conn. 192, 205 , 132 A. 561 (1926); Beccia v. Waterbury, 192 Conn. 127, 133 , 470 A.2d 1202 (1984); Logan v. O’Neill, 187 Conn. 721, 729 , 448 A.2d 1306 (1982); Walkinshaw v. O’Brien, 130 Conn. 122, 134 , 32 A.2d 547 (1943).

1985Brush v. Sixth Taxing District, 104 Conn. 192, 205 , 132 A. 561 (1926); Beccia v. Waterbury, 192 Conn. 127, 133 , 470 A.2d 1202 (1984); Logan v. O’Neill, 187 Conn. 721, 729 , 448 A.2d 1306 (1982); Walkinshaw v. O’Brien, 130 Conn. 122, 134 , 32 A.2d 547 (1943).

1985Brush v. Sixth Taxing District, 104 Conn. 192, 205 , 132 A. 561 (1926); Beccia v. Waterbury, 192 Conn. 127, 133 , 470 A.2d 1202 (1984); Logan v. O’Neill, 187 Conn. 721, 729 , 448 A.2d 1306 (1982); Walkinshaw v. O’Brien, 130 Conn. 122, 134 , 32 A.2d 547 (1943).

1985Brush v. Sixth Taxing District, 104 Conn. 192, 205 , 132 A. 561 (1926); Beccia v. Waterbury, 192 Conn. 127, 133 , 470 A.2d 1202 (1984); Logan v. O’Neill, 187 Conn. 721, 729 , 448 A.2d 1306 (1982); Walkinshaw v. O’Brien, 130 Conn. 122, 134 , 32 A.2d 547 (1943).

1977It is true that in a capital case, which this is not, “[a] 11 of the . . . rules [relating to new trials] are qualified ... in the light of the principle laid down in Andersen v. State, 43 Conn. 514, 517 , that fin a case where human life is at stake, justice, as well as humanity, requires us to pause and consider before we apply those rules in all their rigor.’ ” Taborsky v. State, 142 Conn. 619, 623 , 116 A.2d 433 ; Hamlin v. State, supra, 94.

1977It is true that in a capital case, which this is not, “[a] 11 of the . . . rules [relating to new trials] are qualified ... in the light of the principle laid down in Andersen v. State, 43 Conn. 514, 517 , that fin a case where human life is at stake, justice, as well as humanity, requires us to pause and consider before we apply those rules in all their rigor.’ ” Taborsky v. State, 142 Conn. 619, 623 , 116 A.2d 433 ; Hamlin v. State, supra, 94.

1969In the light of the analysis above of What is meant by “accessory use,” it can be seen that the application of the concept to a particular situation “may often present and depend upon questions of fact, or involve or be open to a legal exercise of discretion by the administrative officials and the board of appeals.” Chudnov v. Board of Appeals, 113 Conn. 49, 55 , 154 A. 161 .

1969In the light of the analysis above of What is meant by “accessory use,” it can be seen that the application of the concept to a particular situation “may often present and depend upon questions of fact, or involve or be open to a legal exercise of discretion by the administrative officials and the board of appeals.” Chudnov v. Board of Appeals, 113 Conn. 49, 55 , 154 A. 161 .

1961Whether a further amendment to the second count can cure the present omission regarding the alleging of notice to the defendant city in the light of the rule relating to the effective date of the subject of an amendment considered in Kelsall v. Kelsall, 139 Conn. 163, 165 , is not before the court.

1956Fairbanks v. State, 143 Conn. 653, 661 , 124 A.2d 893 .

1956Fairbanks v. State, 143 Conn. 653, 661 , 124 A.2d 893 .

1955Driscoll v. Jewell Belting Co., supra, 300; Kulak v. Landers, Frary & Clark, 120 Conn. 606, 608 , 181 A. 720 .

1955Driscoll v. Jewell Belting Co., supra, 300; Kulak v. Landers, Frary & Clark, 120 Conn. 606, 608 , 181 A. 720 .

1951It is not to be construed as making any innovation upon the common law which it does not fairly express.” Shaw v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 557, 565 , 25 L.

1951It is not to be construed as making any innovation upon the common law which it does not fairly express.” Shaw v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 557, 565 , 25 L.

1926Cook v. Morris, 66 Conn. 196 , 33 Atl. 949 ; Fritz v. Gaudet, 101 Conn. 52 , 124 Atl. 841 ; Colvin v. Delaney, 101 Conn. 73, 79 , 124 Atl. 841 .

1926Cook v. Morris, 66 Conn. 196 , 33 Atl. 949 ; Fritz v. Gaudet, 101 Conn. 52 , 124 Atl. 841 ; Colvin v. Delaney, 101 Conn. 73, 79 , 124 Atl. 841 .

1926Cook v. Morris, 66 Conn. 196 , 33 Atl. 949 ; Fritz v. Gaudet, 101 Conn. 52 , 124 Atl. 841 ; Colvin v. Delaney, 101 Conn. 73, 79 , 124 Atl. 841 .

1926Cook v. Morris, 66 Conn. 196 , 33 Atl. 949 ; Fritz v. Gaudet, 101 Conn. 52 , 124 Atl. 841 ; Colvin v. Delaney, 101 Conn. 73, 79 , 124 Atl. 841 .

1921Each case must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and he must determine in the light of the rule laid down in Dale’s Appeal, 57 Conn. 143 , 17 Atl. 757 .