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 1984–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fitzmaurice v. Flynngreen2 sentences2003Subsection (b) of § 52-184c applies only to a “defendant health care provider [who] is not certified by the appropriate American board as being a specialist, is not trained and experienced in a medical specialty, or does not hold himself out as a specialist . . . .” (Emphasis added.) At the time § 52-184c was enacted, this court had, because of the increasing national uniformity in physicians’ “educational background and training,” moved from the statewide standard of care, which was reaffirmed in Fitzmaurice v. Flynn, 167 Conn. 609, 617 , 356 A.2d 887 (1975), to a national standard, free of g 2003Subsection (b) of § 52-184c applies only to a “defendant health care provider [who] is not certified by the appropriate American board as being a specialist, is not trained and experienced in a medical specialty, or does not hold himself out as a specialist . . . .” (Emphasis added.) At the time § 52-184c was enacted, this court had, because of the increasing national uniformity in physicians’ “educational background and training,” moved from the statewide standard of care, which was reaffirmed in Fitzmaurice v. Flynn, 167 Conn. 609, 617 , 356 A.2d 887 (1975), to a national standard, free of g | 1 | 2 |
Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rozbickigreen2 sentences2022Furthermore, it bears emphasis that, although estab- lished by statute, the Office of the Statewide Bar Coun- sel acts as an arm of the court to effectuate its ‘‘inherent authority to regulate attorney conduct and to discipline the members of the bar.’’ Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, 190 Conn. 510, 523 , 461 A.2d 938 (1983); see also Statewide Grievance Commit- tee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232, 239 , 558 A.2d 986 (1989) (statewide bar officials act as ‘‘arm of the court’’ in carrying out duties because ‘‘[t]he regulation of attorney conduct is . . . within the court’s i 2022Furthermore, it bears emphasis that, although estab- lished by statute, the Office of the Statewide Bar Coun- sel acts as an arm of the court to effectuate its ‘‘inherent authority to regulate attorney conduct and to discipline the members of the bar.’’ Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, 190 Conn. 510, 523 , 461 A.2d 938 (1983); see also Statewide Grievance Commit- tee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232, 239 , 558 A.2d 986 (1989) (statewide bar officials act as ‘‘arm of the court’’ in carrying out duties because ‘‘[t]he regulation of attorney conduct is . . . within the court’s i | 1 | 1 |
Logan v. Greenwich Hospital Ass'ngreen2 sentences2003See Logan v. Greenwich Hospital Assn., 191 Conn. 282, 301 , 465 A.2d 294 (1983). 2003See Logan v. Greenwich Hospital Assn., 191 Conn. 282, 301 , 465 A.2d 294 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Console v. Torchinskygreen2 sentences2002See Console v. Torchinsky, 97 Conn. 353, 356 , 116 A. 613 (1922); see also 1 B. 2002See Console v. Torchinsky, 97 Conn. 353, 356 , 116 A. 613 (1922); see also 1 B. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clementegreen2 sentences1996Heiberger v. Clark, 148 Conn. 177 , 169 A.2d 652 (1961); see also State v. Clemente, 166 Conn. 501 , 353 A.2d 723 (1974). 1996Heiberger v. Clark, 148 Conn. 177 , 169 A.2d 652 (1961); see also State v. Clemente, 166 Conn. 501 , 353 A.2d 723 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lewis v. Statewide Grievance Committee
green
2 sentences1998A grievance panel investigates and determines whether probable cause exists for all complaints referred to [it] by the statewide grievance committee or the statewide bar counsel.” (Citation omitted.) Lewis v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 235 Conn. 693 , 696 n.5, 669 A.2d 1202 (1996). 1998A grievance panel investigates and determines whether probable cause exists for all complaints referred to [it] by the statewide grievance committee or the statewide bar counsel.” (Citation omitted.) Lewis v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 235 Conn. 693 , 696 n.5, 669 A.2d 1202 (1996). | 3 | 1996–1999 |
In re Pagano
green
2 sentences2022Furthermore, it bears emphasis that, although estab- lished by statute, the Office of the Statewide Bar Coun- sel acts as an arm of the court to effectuate its ‘‘inherent authority to regulate attorney conduct and to discipline the members of the bar.’’ Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, 190 Conn. 510, 523 , 461 A.2d 938 (1983); see also Statewide Grievance Commit- tee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232, 239 , 558 A.2d 986 (1989) (statewide bar officials act as ‘‘arm of the court’’ in carrying out duties because ‘‘[t]he regulation of attorney conduct is . . . within the court’s i 2022Furthermore, it bears emphasis that, although estab- lished by statute, the Office of the Statewide Bar Coun- sel acts as an arm of the court to effectuate its ‘‘inherent authority to regulate attorney conduct and to discipline the members of the bar.’’ Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, 190 Conn. 510, 523 , 461 A.2d 938 (1983); see also Statewide Grievance Commit- tee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232, 239 , 558 A.2d 986 (1989) (statewide bar officials act as ‘‘arm of the court’’ in carrying out duties because ‘‘[t]he regulation of attorney conduct is . . . within the court’s i | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo
green
2 sentences2022Furthermore, it bears emphasis that, although estab- lished by statute, the Office of the Statewide Bar Coun- sel acts as an arm of the court to effectuate its ‘‘inherent authority to regulate attorney conduct and to discipline the members of the bar.’’ Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, 190 Conn. 510, 523 , 461 A.2d 938 (1983); see also Statewide Grievance Commit- tee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232, 239 , 558 A.2d 986 (1989) (statewide bar officials act as ‘‘arm of the court’’ in carrying out duties because ‘‘[t]he regulation of attorney conduct is . . . within the court’s i 2022Furthermore, it bears emphasis that, although estab- lished by statute, the Office of the Statewide Bar Coun- sel acts as an arm of the court to effectuate its ‘‘inherent authority to regulate attorney conduct and to discipline the members of the bar.’’ Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, 190 Conn. 510, 523 , 461 A.2d 938 (1983); see also Statewide Grievance Commit- tee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232, 239 , 558 A.2d 986 (1989) (statewide bar officials act as ‘‘arm of the court’’ in carrying out duties because ‘‘[t]he regulation of attorney conduct is . . . within the court’s i | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Johnson v. Statewide Grievance Committee
green
2 sentences2017Because the statewide bar counsel acted properly in referring the matter to a grievance panel under ... § 2-32(a)(2)(D), [Johnson's] due process claim must fail." (Emphasis in original.) Id., at 105-106, 726 A.2d 1154 . 2017Practice Book § 2-32(a)(2)(D)"; Johnson v. Statewide Grievance Committee , supra, 248 Conn. at 106 , 726 A.2d 1154 ; thereby suggesting that there was no reason for further review because it is within the unfettered discretion of the statewide bar counsel either to forward the complaint to the grievance panel or to refer it to a screening panel. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008As we already have stated, the trial court’s determination of fees is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. 22 Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kligerman v. Statewide Grievance Comm., No. Cv 950554620 (Feb. 27, 1996)
neutral
1 sentence1997In Kligerman v. Statewide Grievance Committee, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. CV-95-0554620 (February 27, 1996, Maloney, J.) ( 16 Conn. L. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Heiberger v. Clark
green
2 sentences1996Heiberger v. Clark, 148 Conn. 177 , 169 A.2d 652 (1961); see also State v. Clemente, 166 Conn. 501 , 353 A.2d 723 (1974). 1996Heiberger v. Clark, 148 Conn. 177 , 169 A.2d 652 (1961); see also State v. Clemente, 166 Conn. 501 , 353 A.2d 723 (1974). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. One 1981 BMW Automobile
green
2 sentences1991Therefore, whether the manner in which the modified retainer agreement was executed, the terms of the agreement, or both violate the Rules of Professional Conduct is not within the province of this court; State v. One 1981 BMW Automobile, 15 Conn. App. 589, 601 , 546 A.2d 879 (1988); and can be determined only by the statewide grievance committee pursuant to a complaint filed with the statewide bar counsel. 1991Therefore, whether the manner in which the modified retainer agreement was executed, the terms of the agreement, or both violate the Rules of Professional Conduct is not within the province of this court; State v. One 1981 BMW Automobile, 15 Conn. App. 589, 601 , 546 A.2d 879 (1988); and can be determined only by the statewide grievance committee pursuant to a complaint filed with the statewide bar counsel. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.