11 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Medeiros v. South Coast Newspapersgreen2 sentences2024See Medeiros v. South Coast Newspapers, 7 Cal. App. 4th 982, 986 , 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 291 (1992); see id., 986–87 (‘‘Given the legislative concern that the persons who are to receive legal notices be likely to read the newspapers publishing those notices,’’ the court concluded that, ‘‘[s]tanding alone, [the ratio of paying subscribers to town inhabitants of] 1.48 percent is too small a number to be declared to be substantial . . . . [N]or [could the court] say defini- tively that it is insubstantial because there is little to which it can be com- pared,’’ and, accordingly, the court remanded the 2024See Medeiros v. South Coast Newspapers, 7 Cal. App. 4th 982, 986 , 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 291 (1992); see id., 986–87 (‘‘Given the legislative concern that the persons who are to receive legal notices be likely to read the newspapers publishing those notices,’’ the court concluded that, ‘‘[s]tanding alone, [the ratio of paying subscribers to town inhabitants of] 1.48 percent is too small a number to be declared to be substantial . . . . [N]or [could the court] say defini- tively that it is insubstantial because there is little to which it can be com- pared,’’ and, accordingly, the court remanded the | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2003See Roberts v. Roberts, 32 Conn. App. 465, 474-76 , 629 A.2d 1160 (1993). 2003See Roberts v. Roberts, 32 Conn. App. 465, 474-76 , 629 A.2d 1160 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roth v. Weston
green
1 sentence2024In response, the defendant relies on Roth v. Weston, supra, 259 Conn. 202 , and DiGiovanna v. St. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Carson Bulletin
green
2 sentences2024See Medeiros v. South Coast Newspapers, 7 Cal. App. 4th 982, 986 , 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 291 (1992); see id., 986–87 (‘‘Given the legislative concern that the persons who are to receive legal notices be likely to read the newspapers publishing those notices,’’ the court concluded that, ‘‘[s]tanding alone, [the ratio of paying subscribers to town inhabitants of] 1.48 percent is too small a number to be declared to be substantial . . . . [N]or [could the court] say defini- tively that it is insubstantial because there is little to which it can be com- pared,’’ and, accordingly, the court remanded the 2024See Medeiros v. South Coast Newspapers, 7 Cal. App. 4th 982, 986 , 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 291 (1992); see id., 986–87 (‘‘Given the legislative concern that the persons who are to receive legal notices be likely to read the newspapers publishing those notices,’’ the court concluded that, ‘‘[s]tanding alone, [the ratio of paying subscribers to town inhabitants of] 1.48 percent is too small a number to be declared to be substantial . . . . [N]or [could the court] say defini- tively that it is insubstantial because there is little to which it can be com- pared,’’ and, accordingly, the court remanded the | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Salas
neutral
2 sentences2016Id., at 551 , 885 A.2d 1258 . 2016Id., at 551 , 885 A.2d 1258 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers
green
1 sentence2014Equity One, Inc. v. Shivers, supra, 125 Conn. App. 201 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Seymour v. Region One Board of Education
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Morant
green
2 sentences2005In State v. Morant, 13 Conn. App. 378, 384-85 , 536 A.2d 605 (1988), we remanded a case for an evidentiary hearing where the defendant informed the court during the sentencing hearing that he had been pressured to plead guilty. 2005In State v. Morant, 13 Conn. App. 378, 384-85 , 536 A.2d 605 (1988), we remanded a case for an evidentiary hearing where the defendant informed the court during the sentencing hearing that he had been pressured to plead guilty. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Carpenter v. Commissioner of Correction
neutral
2 sentences2005Carpenter v. Commissioner of Correction, 81 Conn. App. 203, 212 , 840 A.2d 1 (2004). 2005Carpenter v. Commissioner of Correction, 81 Conn. App. 203, 212 , 840 A.2d 1 (2004). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Castonguay
green
2 sentences1995Rather, the proper procedure is for the court to conduct a hearing, formal or informal as the occasion may demand, in the presence of a court reporter, at which the facts can be established.” (Emphasis added.) Similarly, in State v. Castonguay, 194 Conn. 416, 436 , 481 A.2d 56 (1984), we noted that although the trial court had improperly instructed the jury that it could discuss the case before entering formal deliberations, “we certainly will not accept the defendant’s speculation that the jurors did in fact discuss the evidence and evaluate it.” Instead, we remanded the case for an evidentia 1995Rather, the proper procedure is for the court to conduct a hearing, formal or informal as the occasion may demand, in the presence of a court reporter, at which the facts can be established.” (Emphasis added.) Similarly, in State v. Castonguay, 194 Conn. 416, 436 , 481 A.2d 56 (1984), we noted that although the trial court had improperly instructed the jury that it could discuss the case before entering formal deliberations, “we certainly will not accept the defendant’s speculation that the jurors did in fact discuss the evidence and evaluate it.” Instead, we remanded the case for an evidentia | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1989Id., 600-601 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Evans
green
2 sentences1988We granted the state’s petition for certification limited to the issues of whether the Appellate Court erred in: (1) concluding that an unpreserved claim that the defendant was not advised of minimum and nonsuspendable minimum sentences as specified by Practice Book § 711 (2) and (3) is reviewable under State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973); (2) remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the defendant was actually aware of the minimum and nonsuspendable minimum sentences; and (3) setting aside the judgments of conviction without making a determination 1988We granted the state’s petition for certification limited to the issues of whether the Appellate Court erred in: (1) concluding that an unpreserved claim that the defendant was not advised of minimum and nonsuspendable minimum sentences as specified by Practice Book § 711 (2) and (3) is reviewable under State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973); (2) remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the defendant was actually aware of the minimum and nonsuspendable minimum sentences; and (3) setting aside the judgments of conviction without making a determination | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.