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.
12 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1932–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cartygreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632, 639 , 790 A.2d 903 , modified on other grounds, 174 N.J. 351 , 806 A.2d 798 (2002). [13] A 1999 consent decree required the provision of warnings in New Jersey in all cases involving requests for consent to search following a routine traffic stop. 2010See, e.g., State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632, 639 , 790 A.2d 903 , modified on other grounds, 174 N.J. 351 , 806 A.2d 798 (2002). [13] A 1999 consent decree required the provision of warnings in New Jersey in all cases involving requests for consent to search following a routine traffic stop. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartygreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632, 639 , 790 A.2d 903 , modified on other grounds, 174 N.J. 351 , 806 A.2d 798 (2002). [13] A 1999 consent decree required the provision of warnings in New Jersey in all cases involving requests for consent to search following a routine traffic stop. 2010See, e.g., State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632, 639 , 790 A.2d 903 , modified on other grounds, 174 N.J. 351 , 806 A.2d 798 (2002). [13] A 1999 consent decree required the provision of warnings in New Jersey in all cases involving requests for consent to search following a routine traffic stop. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Julian Peter Gabrielgreen1 sentence1986Subsection (5) of the rule provides that a declarant witness may be considered unavailable if he is “absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivision (b) ... (3), ... his attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means.” 3 This particular provision of the rule was “ ‘designed primarily to require that an attempt be made to depose a witness (as well as to seek his attendance) as a precondition to the witness being deemed unavailable.’ ” United States v. Gabriel, 715 F.2d 14 | 1 | 1 |
Varner v. Eppleygreen1 sentence1980Capital Investors Co. v. Devers, 387 F.2d 591, 592 (4th Cir. 1967); Gray v. Coan, 48 Iowa 424, 425 (1878); Gray v. Sawyer, 252 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Ky. 1952); Varner v. Eppley, 30 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 531, 536 (1933); Wade v. Hope, 73 Okla. 289, 290-91 , 176 P. 402 (1918), followed in Pleasant v. Allen Bros., 180 Okla. 518, 519 , 71 P.2d 114 (1937); contra, Casias v. United States, 337 F.2d 354, 356 (10th Cir. 1964) (granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial “in the interest of justice” under Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Sawyergreen1 sentence1980Capital Investors Co. v. Devers, 387 F.2d 591, 592 (4th Cir. 1967); Gray v. Coan, 48 Iowa 424, 425 (1878); Gray v. Sawyer, 252 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Ky. 1952); Varner v. Eppley, 30 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 531, 536 (1933); Wade v. Hope, 73 Okla. 289, 290-91 , 176 P. 402 (1918), followed in Pleasant v. Allen Bros., 180 Okla. 518, 519 , 71 P.2d 114 (1937); contra, Casias v. United States, 337 F.2d 354, 356 (10th Cir. 1964) (granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial “in the interest of justice” under Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Steve Casias v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1980Capital Investors Co. v. Devers, 387 F.2d 591, 592 (4th Cir. 1967); Gray v. Coan, 48 Iowa 424, 425 (1878); Gray v. Sawyer, 252 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Ky. 1952); Varner v. Eppley, 30 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 531, 536 (1933); Wade v. Hope, 73 Okla. 289, 290-91 , 176 P. 402 (1918), followed in Pleasant v. Allen Bros., 180 Okla. 518, 519 , 71 P.2d 114 (1937); contra, Casias v. United States, 337 F.2d 354, 356 (10th Cir. 1964) (granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial “in the interest of justice” under Fed. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 278321green1 sentence1980Capital Investors Co. v. Devers, 387 F.2d 591, 592 (4th Cir. 1967); Gray v. Coan, 48 Iowa 424, 425 (1878); Gray v. Sawyer, 252 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Ky. 1952); Varner v. Eppley, 30 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 531, 536 (1933); Wade v. Hope, 73 Okla. 289, 290-91 , 176 P. 402 (1918), followed in Pleasant v. Allen Bros., 180 Okla. 518, 519 , 71 P.2d 114 (1937); contra, Casias v. United States, 337 F.2d 354, 356 (10th Cir. 1964) (granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial “in the interest of justice” under Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Coangreen1 sentence1980Capital Investors Co. v. Devers, 387 F.2d 591, 592 (4th Cir. 1967); Gray v. Coan, 48 Iowa 424, 425 (1878); Gray v. Sawyer, 252 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Ky. 1952); Varner v. Eppley, 30 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 531, 536 (1933); Wade v. Hope, 73 Okla. 289, 290-91 , 176 P. 402 (1918), followed in Pleasant v. Allen Bros., 180 Okla. 518, 519 , 71 P.2d 114 (1937); contra, Casias v. United States, 337 F.2d 354, 356 (10th Cir. 1964) (granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial “in the interest of justice” under Fed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sealy
green
1 sentence2016The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to ... any person who is found with any such weapon or implement concealed upon his person while lawfully removing his household goods or effects from one place to another, or from one residence to another, nor to any person while actually and peaceably engaged in carrying any such weapon or implement from his place of abode or business to a place or person where or by whom such weapon or implement is to be repaired, or while actually and peaceably returning to his place of abode or business with such weapon or implement after the same has been | 1 | 2016–2016 |
O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2000State v. DeFrancesco , 235 Conn. 437 (1995); O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez , 215 Conn. 367 , 372 (1990). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Monteiro v. American Home Assurance Co.
green
2 sentences1998Monteiro v. American Home CT Page 334 Assurance Co. , 177 Conn. 281 , 283 , 416 A.2d 1189 (1979). 1998Monteiro v. American Home CT Page 334 Assurance Co. , 177 Conn. 281 , 283 , 416 A.2d 1189 (1979). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Fordham (In Re Fordham)
green
1 sentence1993Generally, waivers of defense provisions contained in guaranties are enforceable in Massachusetts. (citations omitted.) In Re Fordham, 130 B.R. 632 , 643 (Bkrtcy. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Devlin v. Bennett
green
1 sentence1991In Devlin v. Bennett, 26 Conn. Sup. 102 , 104 (1965), the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment determining whether and to what extent the form of hearing provided for in Conn. Gen. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Giokaris v. Kincaid
green
1 sentence1984Co., 115 Ariz. 387 , 565 P.2d 893 (1977), State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Ishmael, 87 S.D. 49 , 202 N.W.2d 384 (1972), and Giokaris v. Kincaid, 331 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. 1960), all of which treat the provision as an exception, placing the burden of proving regular use on the insurer. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Ishmael
green
2 sentences1984Co., 115 Ariz. 387 , 565 P.2d 893 (1977), State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Ishmael, 87 S.D. 49 , 202 N.W.2d 384 (1972), and Giokaris v. Kincaid, 331 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. 1960), all of which treat the provision as an exception, placing the burden of proving regular use on the insurer. 1984Co., 115 Ariz. 387 , 565 P.2d 893 (1977), State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Ishmael, 87 S.D. 49 , 202 N.W.2d 384 (1972), and Giokaris v. Kincaid, 331 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. 1960), all of which treat the provision as an exception, placing the burden of proving regular use on the insurer. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Keplinger v. Mid-Century Insurance
green
2 sentences1984Co., 115 Ariz. 387 , 565 P.2d 893 (1977), State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Ishmael, 87 S.D. 49 , 202 N.W.2d 384 (1972), and Giokaris v. Kincaid, 331 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. 1960), all of which treat the provision as an exception, placing the burden of proving regular use on the insurer. 1984Co., 115 Ariz. 387 , 565 P.2d 893 (1977), State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Ishmael, 87 S.D. 49 , 202 N.W.2d 384 (1972), and Giokaris v. Kincaid, 331 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. 1960), all of which treat the provision as an exception, placing the burden of proving regular use on the insurer. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Pleasant v. Allen Bros.
green
2 sentences1980Capital Investors Co. v. Devers, 387 F.2d 591, 592 (4th Cir. 1967); Gray v. Coan, 48 Iowa 424, 425 (1878); Gray v. Sawyer, 252 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Ky. 1952); Varner v. Eppley, 30 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 531, 536 (1933); Wade v. Hope, 73 Okla. 289, 290-91 , 176 P. 402 (1918), followed in Pleasant v. Allen Bros., 180 Okla. 518, 519 , 71 P.2d 114 (1937); contra, Casias v. United States, 337 F.2d 354, 356 (10th Cir. 1964) (granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial “in the interest of justice” under Fed. 1980Capital Investors Co. v. Devers, 387 F.2d 591, 592 (4th Cir. 1967); Gray v. Coan, 48 Iowa 424, 425 (1878); Gray v. Sawyer, 252 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Ky. 1952); Varner v. Eppley, 30 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 531, 536 (1933); Wade v. Hope, 73 Okla. 289, 290-91 , 176 P. 402 (1918), followed in Pleasant v. Allen Bros., 180 Okla. 518, 519 , 71 P.2d 114 (1937); contra, Casias v. United States, 337 F.2d 354, 356 (10th Cir. 1964) (granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial “in the interest of justice” under Fed. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Wade v. Hope
green
2 sentences1980Capital Investors Co. v. Devers, 387 F.2d 591, 592 (4th Cir. 1967); Gray v. Coan, 48 Iowa 424, 425 (1878); Gray v. Sawyer, 252 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Ky. 1952); Varner v. Eppley, 30 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 531, 536 (1933); Wade v. Hope, 73 Okla. 289, 290-91 , 176 P. 402 (1918), followed in Pleasant v. Allen Bros., 180 Okla. 518, 519 , 71 P.2d 114 (1937); contra, Casias v. United States, 337 F.2d 354, 356 (10th Cir. 1964) (granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial “in the interest of justice” under Fed. 1980Capital Investors Co. v. Devers, 387 F.2d 591, 592 (4th Cir. 1967); Gray v. Coan, 48 Iowa 424, 425 (1878); Gray v. Sawyer, 252 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Ky. 1952); Varner v. Eppley, 30 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 531, 536 (1933); Wade v. Hope, 73 Okla. 289, 290-91 , 176 P. 402 (1918), followed in Pleasant v. Allen Bros., 180 Okla. 518, 519 , 71 P.2d 114 (1937); contra, Casias v. United States, 337 F.2d 354, 356 (10th Cir. 1964) (granting the defendant’s motion for a new trial “in the interest of justice” under Fed. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Saltzman v. Stromberg-Carlson Telephone Mfg. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1949Co., 46 F. 2d 612, 614 . | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Knowlton v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
green
1 sentence1938Co., 72 Conn. 188, 194 . “. . . whether we call this provision an exception or a reservation, or an agreement.. . . was entitled to have the right de *477 scribed in such provision.” City of New Haven vs. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
City of New Haven v. Hotchkiss
green
1 sentence1938Hotchkiss, 77 Conn. 168, 174 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Shannon v. Jacobson
green
2 sentences1932Bowman v. Foot, 29 Conn. 331, 338 ; Segall v. Gagliardi, 103 Conn. 497, 499 , 130 Atl. 896 ; Shannon v. Jacobson, 262 Mass. 463 , 160 N. E. 245, 247 ; In re Celian, 41 Fed. (2d) 560; Petition of Colburn, 16 Fed. (2d) 780. 1932Bowman v. Foot, 29 Conn. 331, 338 ; Segall v. Gagliardi, 103 Conn. 497, 499 , 130 Atl. 896 ; Shannon v. Jacobson, 262 Mass. 463 , 160 N. E. 245, 247 ; In re Celian, 41 Fed. (2d) 560; Petition of Colburn, 16 Fed. (2d) 780. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Segall v. Gagliardi
green
2 sentences1932Bowman v. Foot, 29 Conn. 331, 338 ; Segall v. Gagliardi, 103 Conn. 497, 499 , 130 Atl. 896 ; Shannon v. Jacobson, 262 Mass. 463 , 160 N. E. 245, 247 ; In re Celian, 41 Fed. (2d) 560; Petition of Colburn, 16 Fed. (2d) 780. 1932Bowman v. Foot, 29 Conn. 331, 338 ; Segall v. Gagliardi, 103 Conn. 497, 499 , 130 Atl. 896 ; Shannon v. Jacobson, 262 Mass. 463 , 160 N. E. 245, 247 ; In re Celian, 41 Fed. (2d) 560; Petition of Colburn, 16 Fed. (2d) 780. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Bowman v. Foot
green
1 sentence1932Bowman v. Foot, 29 Conn. 331, 338 ; Segall v. Gagliardi, 103 Conn. 497, 499 , 130 Atl. 896 ; Shannon v. Jacobson, 262 Mass. 463 , 160 N. E. 245, 247 ; In re Celian, 41 Fed. (2d) 560; Petition of Colburn, 16 Fed. (2d) 780. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.