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 1990–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Donaldgreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., State v. Donald, 325 Conn. 346, 354 , 157 A.3d 1134 (2017) (‘‘[w]hen the facts underlying a claim on appeal are not in dispute . . . that claim is subject to de novo review’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tuxis-Ohr’s, Inc. v. Gherlone, 76 Conn. App. 34, 39 , 818 A.2d 799 (In contract cases, ‘‘[t]he trial court’s legal conclusions are subject to plenary review. [W]here the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision . . . .’’ (Int 2020See, e.g., State v. Donald, 325 Conn. 346, 354 , 157 A.3d 1134 (2017) (‘‘[w]hen the facts underlying a claim on appeal are not in dispute . . . that claim is subject to de novo review’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tuxis-Ohr’s, Inc. v. Gherlone, 76 Conn. App. 34, 39 , 818 A.2d 799 (In contract cases, ‘‘[t]he trial court’s legal conclusions are subject to plenary review. [W]here the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision . . . .’’ (Int | 3 | 4 |
White v. Latimer Point Condominium Assn., Inc.green2 sentences2025See White v. Latimer Point Condominium Assn., Inc., 191 Conn. App. 767 , 775, 216 A.3d 830 (2019) (recognizing that ‘‘[w]hen the facts underlying a claim on appeal are not in dispute and that claim is subject to plenary review, the precise legal analysis undertaken by the trial court is not essential to the reviewing court’s consideration of the issue on appeal’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2025See White v. Latimer Point Condominium Assn., Inc., 191 Conn. App. 767 , 775, 216 A.3d 830 (2019) (recognizing that ‘‘[w]hen the facts underlying a claim on appeal are not in dispute and that claim is subject to plenary review, the precise legal analysis undertaken by the trial court is not essential to the reviewing court’s consideration of the issue on appeal’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Sergey Spitsyn v. Robert Moore, Wardengreen1 sentence2022Co., 419 F.3d 1117, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005) (‘‘[w]hether a court properly applied a statute of limitations and the date a statute of limitations accrues under undisputed facts are questions of law we review de novo’’); Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003) (‘‘[i]f the facts underlying a claim for equitable tolling are undisputed, the question of whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled is . . . reviewed de novo’’). | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen1 sentence2022Co., 419 F.3d 1117, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005) (‘‘[w]hether a court properly applied a statute of limitations and the date a statute of limitations accrues under undisputed facts are questions of law we review de novo’’); Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003) (‘‘[i]f the facts underlying a claim for equitable tolling are undisputed, the question of whether the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled is . . . reviewed de novo’’). | 1 | 1 |
Votre v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C.green2 sentences2020Id.; see also Votre v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 113 Conn. App. 569, 577 , 966 A.2d 813 (determining that second prong of Boone was satisfied where ‘‘the facts underlying the claim occurred solely in the context of the defendants’ ongoing medical treatment of the plaintiff’’ and claim directly involved plaintiff’s medical condition), cert. denied, 292 Conn. 911 , 973 A.2d 661 (2009). 2020Id.; see also Votre v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 113 Conn. App. 569, 577 , 966 A.2d 813 (determining that second prong of Boone was satisfied where ‘‘the facts underlying the claim occurred solely in the context of the defendants’ ongoing medical treatment of the plaintiff’’ and claim directly involved plaintiff’s medical condition), cert. denied, 292 Conn. 911 , 973 A.2d 661 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gaynorgreen1 sentence1990See State v. Gaynor, supra, 503 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Community Action for Greater Middlesex County, Inc. v. American Alliance Insurance
green
2 sentences2019Co., 254 Conn. 387, 396 , 757 A.2d 1074 (2000). 2019Co., 254 Conn. 387, 396 , 757 A.2d 1074 (2000). | 2 | 2017–2019 |
Ammirata v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences2017"The general purpose of [the relevant] rules of practice ... [requiring the appellant to provide a sufficient record] is to ensure that there is a trial court record that is adequate for an informed appellate review of **354 the various claims presented by the parties." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ammirata v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 264 Conn. 737 , 744, 826 A.2d 170 (2003). "[W]hen the facts underlying a claim on appeal are not in dispute and that claim is subject to de novo review, 'the precise legal analysis undertaken by the trial court is not essential to the reviewing court's co 2017"The general purpose of [the relevant] rules of practice ... [requiring the appellant to provide a sufficient record] is to ensure that there is a trial court record that is adequate for an informed appellate review of **354 the various claims presented by the parties." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ammirata v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 264 Conn. 737 , 744, 826 A.2d 170 (2003). "[W]hen the facts underlying a claim on appeal are not in dispute and that claim is subject to de novo review, 'the precise legal analysis undertaken by the trial court is not essential to the reviewing court's co | 2 | 2011–2017 |
Tuxis-Ohr's, Inc. v. Gherlone
green
2 sentences2020See, e.g., State v. Donald, 325 Conn. 346, 354 , 157 A.3d 1134 (2017) (‘‘[w]hen the facts underlying a claim on appeal are not in dispute . . . that claim is subject to de novo review’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tuxis-Ohr’s, Inc. v. Gherlone, 76 Conn. App. 34, 39 , 818 A.2d 799 (In contract cases, ‘‘[t]he trial court’s legal conclusions are subject to plenary review. [W]here the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision . . . .’’ (Int 2020See, e.g., State v. Donald, 325 Conn. 346, 354 , 157 A.3d 1134 (2017) (‘‘[w]hen the facts underlying a claim on appeal are not in dispute . . . that claim is subject to de novo review’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tuxis-Ohr’s, Inc. v. Gherlone, 76 Conn. App. 34, 39 , 818 A.2d 799 (In contract cases, ‘‘[t]he trial court’s legal conclusions are subject to plenary review. [W]here the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision . . . .’’ (Int | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Singleton
green
2 sentences2008For clarity, we reiterated the holding in McElveen that "[w]here, subsequent to a finding of violation of probation, a defendant is criminally convicted for the same conduct underlying the violation of probation, his appeal from that judgment of violation of probation is rendered moot because there is no longer any live controversy about whether he engaged in the conduct for which his probation was violated." Id., at 439, 876 A.2d 1 . 2008Consequently, we "overrule[d] the conclusion in Daniels that a subsequent conviction of criminal conduct arising out of the same facts underlying a violation of probation does not render the appeal from the violation of probation moot." Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Niehaus v. Cowles Business Media, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004Our Supreme Court in Niehaus v. Cowles Business Media, Inc., 263 Conn. 178, 182-86 , 819 A.2d 765 (2003), however, held that there is an adequate basis for appellate review when the facts underlying a claim on appeal are not in dispute and the claim involves a pure question of law. 2004Our Supreme Court in Niehaus v. Cowles Business Media, Inc., 263 Conn. 178, 182-86 , 819 A.2d 765 (2003), however, held that there is an adequate basis for appellate review when the facts underlying a claim on appeal are not in dispute and the claim involves a pure question of law. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Nick v. Planning & Zoning Commission
green
1 sentence1993Accordingly, it is found that plaintiffs are statutorily aggrieved and entitled to prosecute this appeal under the rule of Nick v. Planning Zoning Commission, 6 Conn. App. 110 , 112 (1986). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1992A. Failure to Move to Strike Testimony The facts underlying this claim are set forth in the direct appeal, State v. Johnson, supra, 164-67 , and will not be repeated here except as relevant to this ruling. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.