adversarial hearing in Connecticut

13 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2016 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Calfee v. Usmangreen conn · 1992 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1993–2000 2 sentences 2000See Calfee v. Usman , 224 Conn. 29 , 33-34 , 616 A.2d 250 (1992); see also Sassone v. Lapore , 226 Conn. 773 , 781 , 629, A.2d 357 (1993) (concluding that a judicial finding of probable cause in a tort action, after an adversarial hearing pursuant to § 52-278d , provides constitutionally significant protection against an erroneous depravation of the owner's property interests). 2000See Calfee v. Usman , 224 Conn. 29 , 33-34 , 616 A.2d 250 (1992); see also Sassone v. Lapore , 226 Conn. 773 , 781 , 629, A.2d 357 (1993) (concluding that a judicial finding of probable cause in a tort action, after an adversarial hearing pursuant to § 52-278d , provides constitutionally significant protection against an erroneous depravation of the owner's property interests).	1	3
Sassone v. Leporegreen conn · 1993 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000See Calfee v. Usman , 224 Conn. 29 , 33-34 , 616 A.2d 250 (1992); see also Sassone v. Lapore , 226 Conn. 773 , 781 , 629, A.2d 357 (1993) (concluding that a judicial finding of probable cause in a tort action, after an adversarial hearing pursuant to § 52-278d , provides constitutionally significant protection against an erroneous depravation of the owner's property interests).	1	1
Armstrong v. Manzogreen scotus · 1965 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988See, e.g., Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S. Ct. 1187 , 14 L. 1988See, e.g., Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 , 85 S. Ct. 1187 , 14 L.	1	1
State v. Parkergreen conn · 1971 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 2 sentences 1987For example, certain hearsay testimony, such as a dying declaration; Mattox v. United States, supra, 244; State v. Onofrio, 179 Conn. 23, 43 , 425 A.2d 560 (1979); or testimony presented at a prior adversarial hearing; Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 68-70 ; California v. Green, supra, 164 ; see State v. Parker, 161 Conn. 500, 504 , 289 A.2d 894 (1971); is admissible even though the defendant does not have an opportunity to cross-examine or confront the declarant, who is unavailable to testify at trial. 1987For example, certain hearsay testimony, such as a dying declaration; Mattox v. United States, supra, 244; State v. Onofrio, 179 Conn. 23, 43 , 425 A.2d 560 (1979); or testimony presented at a prior adversarial hearing; Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 68-70 ; California v. Green, supra, 164 ; see State v. Parker, 161 Conn. 500, 504 , 289 A.2d 894 (1971); is admissible even though the defendant does not have an opportunity to cross-examine or confront the declarant, who is unavailable to testify at trial.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Davis green conn · 1994 2 sentences 2008Following this adversarial hearing, “[i]f the trial court determines that the evidence has established a violation of a condition of probation, then it proceeds to the second component of probation revocation, the determination of whether the defendant’s probationary status should be revoked.” State v. Davis, 229 Conn. 285, 290 , 641 A.2d 370 (1994). 2008Following this adversarial hearing, “[i]f the trial court determines that the evidence has established a violation of a condition of probation, then it proceeds to the second component of probation revocation, the determination of whether the defendant’s probationary status should be revoked.” State v. Davis, 229 Conn. 285, 290 , 641 A.2d 370 (1994).	2	1996–2008
TOWN OF BOZRAH v. Chmurynski green conn · 2012 2 sentences 2016Although this court noted that "an injunction hearing offers greater safeguards" than a search warrant because it "is an adversary proceeding that affords both parties the opportunity to be heard," nowhere in our decision did we suggest that an adversarial hearing was required prior to the issuance of a judicial order authorizing an administrative search. 22 Id., at 696 , 36 A.3d 210 . 2016Although this court noted that "an injunction hearing offers greater safeguards" than a search warrant because it "is an adversary proceeding that affords both parties the opportunity to be heard," nowhere in our decision did we suggest that an adversarial hearing was required prior to the issuance of a judicial order authorizing an administrative search. 22 Id., at 696 , 36 A.3d 210 .	1	2016–2016
Gerstein v. Pugh green scotus · 1975 2 sentences 2009Id., 120 . 2009Id., at 120 , 95 S.Ct. 854 .	1	2009–2009
Michael Robert O'ROuRke Jeff Rosenzweig, as Next Friend of Michael Robert O'ROuRke v. Roger Endell, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction green ca8 · 1998 2 sentences 2005It did not address the question of what constitutes a sufficient showing to require an adversarial hearing in the first instance. 13 We also believe that the plaintiff in error’s reliance on O’Rourke v. Endell, supra, 153 F.3d 560 , is misplaced. 2005It did not address the question of what constitutes a sufficient showing to require an adversarial hearing in the first instance. 13 We also believe that the plaintiff in error’s reliance on O’Rourke v. Endell, supra, 153 F.3d 560 , is misplaced.	1	2005–2005
Bria v. Ventana Corp. green connappct · 2000 1 sentence 2000Earlier this year, the Appellate Court held that such a claim in a termination of parental rights proceeding is best brought in "an adversarial hearing allowing for cross-examination similar to that of a habeas corpus proceeding." In re Amanda A., supra, 58 Conn. App. 461 .	1	2000–2000
Miner v. Miner green conn · 1951 2 sentences 2000A petition for a new trial provides for such a hearing; Miner v. Miner, 137 Conn. 642 , 645 , 80 A.2d 512 (1951). 2000A petition for a new trial provides for such a hearing; Miner v. Miner, 137 Conn. 642 , 645 , 80 A.2d 512 (1951).	1	2000–2000
Union Trust Co. v. Heggelund green conn · 1991 2 sentences 1992Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 222 Conn. 361, 373 , 610 A.2d 652 (1992); Union Trust Co. v. Heggelund, 219 Conn. 620 , 624 n.3, 594 A.2d 464 (1991). 4 When there is no ex parte impairment of the defendant’s property rights, a judicial finding of probable cause suffices to satisfy the defendant’s constitutional right to due process. 1992Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 222 Conn. 361, 373 , 610 A.2d 652 (1992); Union Trust Co. v. Heggelund, 219 Conn. 620 , 624 n.3, 594 A.2d 464 (1991). 4 When there is no ex parte impairment of the defendant’s property rights, a judicial finding of probable cause suffices to satisfy the defendant’s constitutional right to due process.	1	1992–1992
Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms green conn · 1992 2 sentences 1992Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 222 Conn. 361, 373 , 610 A.2d 652 (1992); Union Trust Co. v. Heggelund, 219 Conn. 620 , 624 n.3, 594 A.2d 464 (1991). 4 When there is no ex parte impairment of the defendant’s property rights, a judicial finding of probable cause suffices to satisfy the defendant’s constitutional right to due process. 1992Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 222 Conn. 361, 373 , 610 A.2d 652 (1992); Union Trust Co. v. Heggelund, 219 Conn. 620 , 624 n.3, 594 A.2d 464 (1991). 4 When there is no ex parte impairment of the defendant’s property rights, a judicial finding of probable cause suffices to satisfy the defendant’s constitutional right to due process.	1	1992–1992
Hernandez v. Monterey Village Associates Ltd. Partnership green connappct · 1989 1 sentence 1991Cf. Hernandez v. Monterey Village Associates Limited Partnership, 17 Conn. App. 421 , 425-26 (1989).	1	1991–1991
State v. Onofrio green conn · 1979 2 sentences 1987For example, certain hearsay testimony, such as a dying declaration; Mattox v. United States, supra, 244; State v. Onofrio, 179 Conn. 23, 43 , 425 A.2d 560 (1979); or testimony presented at a prior adversarial hearing; Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 68-70 ; California v. Green, supra, 164 ; see State v. Parker, 161 Conn. 500, 504 , 289 A.2d 894 (1971); is admissible even though the defendant does not have an opportunity to cross-examine or confront the declarant, who is unavailable to testify at trial. 1987For example, certain hearsay testimony, such as a dying declaration; Mattox v. United States, supra, 244; State v. Onofrio, 179 Conn. 23, 43 , 425 A.2d 560 (1979); or testimony presented at a prior adversarial hearing; Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 68-70 ; California v. Green, supra, 164 ; see State v. Parker, 161 Conn. 500, 504 , 289 A.2d 894 (1971); is admissible even though the defendant does not have an opportunity to cross-examine or confront the declarant, who is unavailable to testify at trial.	1	1987–1987

Where else courts name it

IL 48 (1980–2025) TX 45 (1990–2024) NY 40 (1976–2026) FL 36 (1985–2025) CA 25 (1981–2025) WA 25 (1994–2024) MS 18 (1990–2022) NJ 13 (1983–2022) CT 13 (1987–2016) MO 13 (1994–2019) IN 12 (1985–2018) KY 12 (2000–2026) NM 11 (1995–2024) PA 11 (1980–2025) OH 9 (1989–2020) OR 8 (1981–2023) MD 7 (1984–2025) MI 7 (1989–2018) KS 7 (1991–2015) AL 7 (1989–2004) CO 7 (1989–2011) NV 7 (1984–2020) NC 6 (1990–2026) LA 6 (1986–2017) SC 6 (1994–2011) TN 6 (1995–2015) GA 6 (1970–2025) DC 5 (1992–2016) AK 5 (1995–2025) AZ 5 (1984–2018) IA 4 (2002–2023) VT 4 (1994–2022) MN 4 (1989–2017) OK 3 (1990–2013) AR 3 (2004–2019) SD 3 (1996–1996) MT 2 (1998–2025) NE 2 (1998–2017) WV 2 (1980–2002) DE 2 (2020–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check