long-recognized presumption in Connecticut

2010Moreover, "[a]lthough it is a critical prerequisite to any court's involvement in a case, we repeatedly have held that, when `a decision as to whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is required, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged.' Demar v. Open Space & Conservation Commission, 211 Conn. 416, 425 , 559 A.2d 1103 (1989); see also Seebeck v. State, 246 Conn. 514, 533 , 717 A.2d 1161 (1998) (noting `the long recognized presumption in favor of appellate jurisdiction')." In re Judicial Inquiry No.2005-02, 293 Conn. 247, 254 , 977 A.2d 166 (2009).

2010Moreover, "[a]lthough it is a critical prerequisite to any court's involvement in a case, we repeatedly have held that, when `a decision as to whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is required, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged.' Demar v. Open Space & Conservation Commission, 211 Conn. 416, 425 , 559 A.2d 1103 (1989); see also Seebeck v. State, 246 Conn. 514, 533 , 717 A.2d 1161 (1998) (noting `the long recognized presumption in favor of appellate jurisdiction')." In re Judicial Inquiry No.2005-02, 293 Conn. 247, 254 , 977 A.2d 166 (2009).

2000Fetterman v. University of Connecticut, 192 Conn. 539 , 550-552 (1984).

1995Fetterman v. University of Connecticut, 192 Conn. 539 , 550-551 , 473 A.2d 1176 (1984).

2006See Gardner v. Balboni, 218 Conn. 220, 231 , 588 A.2d 634 (1991); State v. Clemente, 166 Conn. 501, 530 , 353 A.2d 723 (1974) (Cotter, J., dissenting) (noting that § 52-172 is a “legislatively-created [exception] to the hearsay rule”).

2006See Gardner v. Balboni, 218 Conn. 220, 231 , 588 A.2d 634 (1991); State v. Clemente, 166 Conn. 501, 530 , 353 A.2d 723 (1974) (Cotter, J., dissenting) (noting that § 52-172 is a “legislatively-created [exception] to the hearsay rule”).

1992Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations v. Board of Education, 177 Conn. 68 , 73 (1979); Johnson v. Personnel Appeal Board, 174 Conn. 519 , 521-22 (1978).

1992Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations v. Board of Education, 177 Conn. 68 , 73 (1979); Johnson v. Personnel Appeal Board, 174 Conn. 519 , 521-22 (1978).

1983The trial court, applying the long recognized principle that the existence of an employer-employee relationship depends on whether the employer has retained the right to control the means and method of work; Spring v. Constantino, 168 Conn. 563, 573 , 362 A.2d 871 (1975); found that *176 Pease was an employee of Florida Unlimited.

1983The trial court, applying the long recognized principle that the existence of an employer-employee relationship depends on whether the employer has retained the right to control the means and method of work; Spring v. Constantino, 168 Conn. 563, 573 , 362 A.2d 871 (1975); found that *176 Pease was an employee of Florida Unlimited.

1978Under the circumstances of this case, we find that this claim cannot be supported. *79 While it is true that general searches are condemned and that police executing a search warrant may seize only those items specified in the warrant; e.g., Marron v. United States, supra; the long recognized exception to this rule is that “ ‘where a police officer has a warrant to search a given area for specified objects, and in the course of the search comes across some other article of incriminating character, the property is seizable under the plain view doctrine/ United States v. Pacelli, 470 F.2d 67, 70

1978Under the circumstances of this case, we find that this claim cannot be supported. *79 While it is true that general searches are condemned and that police executing a search warrant may seize only those items specified in the warrant; e.g., Marron v. United States, supra; the long recognized exception to this rule is that “ ‘where a police officer has a warrant to search a given area for specified objects, and in the course of the search comes across some other article of incriminating character, the property is seizable under the plain view doctrine/ United States v. Pacelli, 470 F.2d 67, 70

1951See Rawson v. State, 19 Conn. 292, 299 ; Longstean v. McCaffrey’s Sons, 95 Conn. 486, 493 , 111 A. 788 ; 50 Am.

1951See Rawson v. State, 19 Conn. 292, 299 ; Longstean v. McCaffrey’s Sons, 95 Conn. 486, 493 , 111 A. 788 ; 50 Am.

1941Hosmer, 2 Conn. 350 , that a mortgage creditor of an insolvent estate could, in the first instance, establish his claim under the mortgage note, and then, after obtaining from the estate a pro rata dividend on the full amount of his claim, resort to the mortgage to seek satisfaction of the unpaid bah anee.

1930In Congress Bank & Trust Co. v. Brockett, 111 Conn. 490, 492 , 150 Atl. 742 , we say this rule has existed in this State since 1846, when Middletown v. Berlin, 18 Conn. 189, 196 , was decided.

1930In Congress Bank & Trust Co. v. Brockett, 111 Conn. 490, 492 , 150 Atl. 742 , we say this rule has existed in this State since 1846, when Middletown v. Berlin, 18 Conn. 189, 196 , was decided.

1930In Congress Bank & Trust Co. v. Brockett, 111 Conn. 490, 492 , 150 Atl. 742 , we say this rule has existed in this State since 1846, when Middletown v. Berlin, 18 Conn. 189, 196 , was decided.