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.
15 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2017 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Hodge , 248 Conn. 207 , 227 [ 726 A.2d 531 ] (when the defendant [fails] to raise a disparate treatment claim with respect to [specific] venirepersons, the record is inadequate for appellate review of his claims with respect to those venirepersons), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 [ 120 S.Ct. 409 , 145 L.Ed.2d 319 ] (1999) ; State v. Haughey , 124 Conn.App. 58 , 61 n.3, [ 3 A.3d 980 ] (same) [cert. denied, 299 Conn. 912 , 10 A.3d 529 (2010) ]. 2013See, e.g., State v. Hodge, 248 Conn. 207, 227 [ 726 A.2d 531 ] (when ‘the defendant [fails] to raise a disparate treatment claim with respect to [specific] venirepersons, the record is inadequate for appellate review of his claims with respect to those venirepersons’), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 [ 120 S. Ct. 409 , 145 L. | 5 | 6 |
State v. Hodgegreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Hodge , 248 Conn. 207 , 227 [ 726 A.2d 531 ] (when the defendant [fails] to raise a disparate treatment claim with respect to [specific] venirepersons, the record is inadequate for appellate review of his claims with respect to those venirepersons), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 [ 120 S.Ct. 409 , 145 L.Ed.2d 319 ] (1999) ; State v. Haughey , 124 Conn.App. 58 , 61 n.3, [ 3 A.3d 980 ] (same) [cert. denied, 299 Conn. 912 , 10 A.3d 529 (2010) ]. 2017See, e.g., State v. Hodge , 248 Conn. 207 , 227 [ 726 A.2d 531 ] (when the defendant [fails] to raise a disparate treatment claim with respect to [specific] venirepersons, the record is inadequate for appellate review of his claims with respect to those venirepersons), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 [ 120 S.Ct. 409 , 145 L.Ed.2d 319 ] (1999) ; State v. Haughey , 124 Conn.App. 58 , 61 n.3, [ 3 A.3d 980 ] (same) [cert. denied, 299 Conn. 912 , 10 A.3d 529 (2010) ]. | 5 | 5 |
Mayabb v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Hodge , 248 Conn. 207 , 227 [ 726 A.2d 531 ] (when the defendant [fails] to raise a disparate treatment claim with respect to [specific] venirepersons, the record is inadequate for appellate review of his claims with respect to those venirepersons), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 [ 120 S.Ct. 409 , 145 L.Ed.2d 319 ] (1999) ; State v. Haughey , 124 Conn.App. 58 , 61 n.3, [ 3 A.3d 980 ] (same) [cert. denied, 299 Conn. 912 , 10 A.3d 529 (2010) ]. 2013See, e.g., State v. Hodge, 248 Conn. 207, 227 [ 726 A.2d 531 ] (when ‘the defendant [fails] to raise a disparate treatment claim with respect to [specific] venirepersons, the record is inadequate for appellate review of his claims with respect to those venirepersons’), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 [ 120 S. Ct. 409 , 145 L. | 5 | 5 |
Neilson v. Michigangreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Hodge , 248 Conn. 207 , 227 [ 726 A.2d 531 ] (when the defendant [fails] to raise a disparate treatment claim with respect to [specific] venirepersons, the record is inadequate for appellate review of his claims with respect to those venirepersons), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 [ 120 S.Ct. 409 , 145 L.Ed.2d 319 ] (1999) ; State v. Haughey , 124 Conn.App. 58 , 61 n.3, [ 3 A.3d 980 ] (same) [cert. denied, 299 Conn. 912 , 10 A.3d 529 (2010) ]. 2013See, e.g., State v. Hodge, 248 Conn. 207, 227 [ 726 A.2d 531 ] (when ‘the defendant [fails] to raise a disparate treatment claim with respect to [specific] venirepersons, the record is inadequate for appellate review of his claims with respect to those venirepersons’), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 [ 120 S. Ct. 409 , 145 L. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Haugheygreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Hodge , 248 Conn. 207 , 227 [ 726 A.2d 531 ] (when the defendant [fails] to raise a disparate treatment claim with respect to [specific] venirepersons, the record is inadequate for appellate review of his claims with respect to those venirepersons), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 [ 120 S.Ct. 409 , 145 L.Ed.2d 319 ] (1999) ; State v. Haughey , 124 Conn.App. 58 , 61 n.3, [ 3 A.3d 980 ] (same) [cert. denied, 299 Conn. 912 , 10 A.3d 529 (2010) ]. 2017See, e.g., State v. Hodge , 248 Conn. 207 , 227 [ 726 A.2d 531 ] (when the defendant [fails] to raise a disparate treatment claim with respect to [specific] venirepersons, the record is inadequate for appellate review of his claims with respect to those venirepersons), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 [ 120 S.Ct. 409 , 145 L.Ed.2d 319 ] (1999) ; State v. Haughey , 124 Conn.App. 58 , 61 n.3, [ 3 A.3d 980 ] (same) [cert. denied, 299 Conn. 912 , 10 A.3d 529 (2010) ]. | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Alonzo Houstongreen1 sentence2013See State v. Hodge, supra, 248 Conn. 228 (“[bjecause a disparate treatment claim raises factual questions that must be decided by the trial court, the defendant’s failure to raise the claim in the trial court is fatal to his claim on appeal”); 4 see also United States v. Houston, 456 F.3d 1328, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006) (without adequate record, court lacks “benefit of the prosecutor’s explanation for why he struck the black venire members rather than the white venire members now alleged to be similarly situated” and the “benefit of a finding by the trial judge as to the credibility of such explan | 1 | 1 |
Booker v. Massachusetts Department of Public Healthgreen1 sentence2012June 29, 2011) ("while statistical evidence could be relevant [in individual disparate treatment case], bare allegations and numbers alone without more context provided are not sufficient"); Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2010) ("[s]tatistical evidence can be used to bolster an individual claim of disparate treatment, but [s]tatistics alone are insufficient in a disparate-treatment claim because an individual plaintiff must prove that he or she in particular has been discriminated against" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Booker v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health | 1 | 1 |
Mayor of Philadelphia v. Educational Equality Leaguegreen2 sentences2012June 29, 2011) ("while statistical evidence could be relevant [in individual disparate treatment case], bare allegations and numbers alone without more context provided are not sufficient"); Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2010) ("[s]tatistical evidence can be used to bolster an individual claim of disparate treatment, but [s]tatistics alone are insufficient in a disparate-treatment claim because an individual plaintiff must prove that he or she in particular has been discriminated against" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Booker v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health 2012June 29, 2011) ("while statistical evidence could be relevant [in individual disparate treatment case], bare allegations and numbers alone without more context provided are not sufficient"); Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2010) ("[s]tatistical evidence can be used to bolster an individual claim of disparate treatment, but [s]tatistics alone are insufficient in a disparate-treatment claim because an individual plaintiff must prove that he or she in particular has been discriminated against" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Booker v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health | 1 | 1 |
Bussey v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2012June 29, 2011) ("while statistical evidence could be relevant [in individual disparate treatment case], bare allegations and numbers alone without more context provided are not sufficient"); Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2010) ("[s]tatistical evidence can be used to bolster an individual claim of disparate treatment, but [s]tatistics alone are insufficient in a disparate-treatment claim because an individual plaintiff must prove that he or she in particular has been discriminated against" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Booker v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health | 1 | 1 |
Patricia SHUMWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appelleegreen1 sentence2012The reason is that, when the number of comparators is small, "slight changes in the data can drastically alter the result." Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., supra, at 663. [37] The white employees to whom the plaintiff compares herself are: the teacher who Smith had asked the plaintiff to vouch for while she was the principal at Beardsley School; the teacher who the plaintiff had interviewed while she was the principal at Roosevelt School; the principals L.R. and A.E.; and the teachers V.L. and T.B. [38] See Shumway v. United Parcel Service, Inc., supra, 118 F.3d at 64 (when pla | 1 | 1 |
Adamantia Pollis v. The New School for Social Researchgreen1 sentence2012June 29, 2011) ("while statistical evidence could be relevant [in individual disparate treatment case], bare allegations and numbers alone without more context provided are not sufficient"); Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2010) ("[s]tatistical evidence can be used to bolster an individual claim of disparate treatment, but [s]tatistics alone are insufficient in a disparate-treatment claim because an individual plaintiff must prove that he or she in particular has been discriminated against" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Booker v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health | 1 | 1 |
William Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corporationgreen1 sentence2012The reason is that, when the number of comparators is small, "slight changes in the data can drastically alter the result." Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., supra, at 663. [37] The white employees to whom the plaintiff compares herself are: the teacher who Smith had asked the plaintiff to vouch for while she was the principal at Beardsley School; the teacher who the plaintiff had interviewed while she was the principal at Roosevelt School; the principals L.R. and A.E.; and the teachers V.L. and T.B. [38] See Shumway v. United Parcel Service, Inc., supra, 118 F.3d at 64 (when pla | 1 | 1 |
Donna Harper v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.green1 sentence2012June 29, 2011) ("while statistical evidence could be relevant [in individual disparate treatment case], bare allegations and numbers alone without more context provided are not sufficient"); Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2010) ("[s]tatistical evidence can be used to bolster an individual claim of disparate treatment, but [s]tatistics alone are insufficient in a disparate-treatment claim because an individual plaintiff must prove that he or she in particular has been discriminated against" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Booker v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health | 1 | 1 |
Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell Public Schoolsgreen1 sentence2012June 29, 2011) ("while statistical evidence could be relevant [in individual disparate treatment case], bare allegations and numbers alone without more context provided are not sufficient"); Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2010) ("[s]tatistical evidence can be used to bolster an individual claim of disparate treatment, but [s]tatistics alone are insufficient in a disparate-treatment claim because an individual plaintiff must prove that he or she in particular has been discriminated against" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Booker v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health | 1 | 1 |
Reynolds v. Barrettgreen1 sentence2012June 29, 2011) ("while statistical evidence could be relevant [in individual disparate treatment case], bare allegations and numbers alone without more context provided are not sufficient"); Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2010) ("[s]tatistical evidence can be used to bolster an individual claim of disparate treatment, but [s]tatistics alone are insufficient in a disparate-treatment claim because an individual plaintiff must prove that he or she in particular has been discriminated against" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Booker v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health | 1 | 1 |
Simpson v. Leavittgreen1 sentence2012June 29, 2011) ("while statistical evidence could be relevant [in individual disparate treatment case], bare allegations and numbers alone without more context provided are not sufficient"); Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2010) ("[s]tatistical evidence can be used to bolster an individual claim of disparate treatment, but [s]tatistics alone are insufficient in a disparate-treatment claim because an individual plaintiff must prove that he or she in particular has been discriminated against" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Booker v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health | 1 | 1 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2006See State v. Hodge, supra, 248 Conn. 228 (“[b]ecause a disparate treatment claim raises factual questions that must be decided by the trial court, the defendant’s failure to raise the claim in the trial court is fatal to his claim on appeal”); see also State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392, 399 , 819 A.2d 884 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1157 (2003). 2006See State v. Hodge, supra, 248 Conn. 228 (“[b]ecause a disparate treatment claim raises factual questions that must be decided by the trial court, the defendant’s failure to raise the claim in the trial court is fatal to his claim on appeal”); see also State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392, 399 , 819 A.2d 884 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1157 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Younggreen1 sentence2006See State v. Hodge, supra, 248 Conn. 228 (“[b]ecause a disparate treatment claim raises factual questions that must be decided by the trial court, the defendant’s failure to raise the claim in the trial court is fatal to his claim on appeal”); see also State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392, 399 , 819 A.2d 884 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1157 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Jefferson v. Eddygreen1 sentence2006See State v. Hodge, supra, 248 Conn. 228 (“[b]ecause a disparate treatment claim raises factual questions that must be decided by the trial court, the defendant’s failure to raise the claim in the trial court is fatal to his claim on appeal”); see also State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392, 399 , 819 A.2d 884 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1157 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Craine v. Trinity Collegegreen2 sentences2003Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the commission improperly applied the framework set forth in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., supra, 530 U.S. 142 -43. 17 Recently, in Craine v. Trinity College, 259 Conn. 625, 636-37, 645 , 791 A.2d 518 (2002), we stated that, in order to determine whether a complainant may prevail on a disparate treatment claim, we employ the analytical framework set forth by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S. Ct. 1817 , 36 L. 2003Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the commission improperly applied the framework set forth in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., supra, 530 U.S. 142 -43. 17 Recently, in Craine v. Trinity College, 259 Conn. 625, 636-37, 645 , 791 A.2d 518 (2002), we stated that, in order to determine whether a complainant may prevail on a disparate treatment claim, we employ the analytical framework set forth by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S. Ct. 1817 , 36 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Chestnut Realty, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunitiesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Robinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
green
2 sentences2003Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the commission improperly applied the framework set forth in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., supra, 530 U.S. 142 -43. 17 Recently, in Craine v. Trinity College, 259 Conn. 625, 636-37, 645 , 791 A.2d 518 (2002), we stated that, in order to determine whether a complainant may prevail on a disparate treatment claim, we employ the analytical framework set forth by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S. Ct. 1817 , 36 L. 2003Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the commission improperly applied the framework set forth in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., supra, 530 U.S. 142 -43. 17 Recently, in Craine v. Trinity College, 259 Conn. 625, 636-37, 645 , 791 A.2d 518 (2002), we stated that, in order to determine whether a complainant may prevail on a disparate treatment claim, we employ the analytical framework set forth by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S. Ct. 1817 , 36 L. | 4 | 1992–2003 |
State v. Haughey
green
2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Hodge , 248 Conn. 207 , 227 [ 726 A.2d 531 ] (when the defendant [fails] to raise a disparate treatment claim with respect to [specific] venirepersons, the record is inadequate for appellate review of his claims with respect to those venirepersons), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 [ 120 S.Ct. 409 , 145 L.Ed.2d 319 ] (1999) ; State v. Haughey , 124 Conn.App. 58 , 61 n.3, [ 3 A.3d 980 ] (same) [cert. denied, 299 Conn. 912 , 10 A.3d 529 (2010) ]. 2017See, e.g., State v. Hodge , 248 Conn. 207 , 227 [ 726 A.2d 531 ] (when the defendant [fails] to raise a disparate treatment claim with respect to [specific] venirepersons, the record is inadequate for appellate review of his claims with respect to those venirepersons), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 [ 120 S.Ct. 409 , 145 L.Ed.2d 319 ] (1999) ; State v. Haughey , 124 Conn.App. 58 , 61 n.3, [ 3 A.3d 980 ] (same) [cert. denied, 299 Conn. 912 , 10 A.3d 529 (2010) ]. | 2 | 2013–2017 |
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
red
2 sentences1994II The plaintiff next claims that the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the hearing officer as to whether ESPN satisfied its burden of persuasion under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, supra, 490 U.S. 228 . 1992CCHRO claims that the hearing examiner improperly applied the disparate treatment test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 802 (1973), when he should have applied the "mixed notice" or "direct evidence" theory set forth in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). | 2 | 1992–1994 |
State v. Shipman
green
2 sentences2017Thereafter, pursuant to Practice Book § 65-1, the Supreme Court transferred the [petitioner's] appeal to this court." (Footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shipman , 142 Conn.App. 161 , 163-65, 64 A.3d 338 , cert. denied, 309 Conn. 918 , 70 A.3d 41 (2013). 2017Thereafter, pursuant to Practice Book § 65-1, the Supreme Court transferred the [petitioner's] appeal to this court." (Footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shipman , 142 Conn.App. 161 , 163-65, 64 A.3d 338 , cert. denied, 309 Conn. 918 , 70 A.3d 41 (2013). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Booker v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health
green
1 sentence2012June 29, 2011) ("while statistical evidence could be relevant [in individual disparate treatment case], bare allegations and numbers alone without more context provided are not sufficient"); Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2010) ("[s]tatistical evidence can be used to bolster an individual claim of disparate treatment, but [s]tatistics alone are insufficient in a disparate-treatment claim because an individual plaintiff must prove that he or she in particular has been discriminated against" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Booker v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Robert F. Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Board of Education, Body Corporate Cromwell Board of Education Body Corporate
green
1 sentence2012June 29, 2011) ("while statistical evidence could be relevant [in individual disparate treatment case], bare allegations and numbers alone without more context provided are not sufficient"); Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2010) ("[s]tatistical evidence can be used to bolster an individual claim of disparate treatment, but [s]tatistics alone are insufficient in a disparate-treatment claim because an individual plaintiff must prove that he or she in particular has been discriminated against" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Booker v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Mark A. Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012June 29, 2011) ("while statistical evidence could be relevant [in individual disparate treatment case], bare allegations and numbers alone without more context provided are not sufficient"); Reynolds v. Barrett, 741 F.Supp.2d 416, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2010) ("[s]tatistical evidence can be used to bolster an individual claim of disparate treatment, but [s]tatistics alone are insufficient in a disparate-treatment claim because an individual plaintiff must prove that he or she in particular has been discriminated against" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Booker v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Singleton
green
1 sentence2011Accordingly, in State v. Jackson, 95 Conn. App. 400, 410-14 , 896 A.2d 137 , cert. denied, 279 Conn. 904 , 901 A.2d 1226 (2006), we declined to review a claim that the trial court should have reconsidered its denials of three prior Batson challenges after it sustained a Batson challenge as to a fourth venireperson, stating that “[djefense counsel was obligated to make known to the court his new claim under Batson , which was predicated on additional facts that were unavailable at the time the court made its prior rulings.” 11 Id., 413; *262 accord State v. Haughey, 124 Conn. App. 58 , 61 n.3, | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2011Accordingly, in State v. Jackson, 95 Conn. App. 400, 410-14 , 896 A.2d 137 , cert. denied, 279 Conn. 904 , 901 A.2d 1226 (2006), we declined to review a claim that the trial court should have reconsidered its denials of three prior Batson challenges after it sustained a Batson challenge as to a fourth venireperson, stating that “[djefense counsel was obligated to make known to the court his new claim under Batson , which was predicated on additional facts that were unavailable at the time the court made its prior rulings.” 11 Id., 413; *262 accord State v. Haughey, 124 Conn. App. 58 , 61 n.3, 2011Accordingly, in State v. Jackson, 95 Conn. App. 400, 410-14 , 896 A.2d 137 , cert. denied, 279 Conn. 904 , 901 A.2d 1226 (2006), we declined to review a claim that the trial court should have reconsidered its denials of three prior Batson challenges after it sustained a Batson challenge as to a fourth venireperson, stating that “[djefense counsel was obligated to make known to the court his new claim under Batson , which was predicated on additional facts that were unavailable at the time the court made its prior rulings.” 11 Id., 413; *262 accord State v. Haughey, 124 Conn. App. 58 , 61 n.3, | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Felder
green
1 sentence2011Accordingly, in State v. Jackson, 95 Conn. App. 400, 410-14 , 896 A.2d 137 , cert. denied, 279 Conn. 904 , 901 A.2d 1226 (2006), we declined to review a claim that the trial court should have reconsidered its denials of three prior Batson challenges after it sustained a Batson challenge as to a fourth venireperson, stating that “[djefense counsel was obligated to make known to the court his new claim under Batson , which was predicated on additional facts that were unavailable at the time the court made its prior rulings.” 11 Id., 413; *262 accord State v. Haughey, 124 Conn. App. 58 , 61 n.3, | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Shirley Weigel v. Target Stores, a Division of Dayton Hudson Corporation green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.