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.
11 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Connecticut v. Portergreen2 sentences2011The dissent specifically contends that the defendant preserved her claim when she filed her motion for a Porter hearing; see State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S.Ct. 1384 , 140 L.Ed.2d 645 (1998); challenging the admission of the blood test results on chain of custody grounds, and when she subsequently appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's decision to admit those results. 2011The dissent specifically contends that the defendant preserved her claim when she filed her motion for a Porter hearing; see State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S.Ct. 1384 , 140 L.Ed.2d 645 (1998); challenging the admission of the blood test results on chain of custody grounds, and when she subsequently appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's decision to admit those results. | 1 | 1 |
Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass'ngreen2 sentences2011The dissent specifically contends that the defendant preserved her claim when she filed her motion for a Porter hearing; see State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S.Ct. 1384 , 140 L.Ed.2d 645 (1998); challenging the admission of the blood test results on chain of custody grounds, and when she subsequently appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's decision to admit those results. 2011The dissent specifically contends that the defendant preserved her claim when she filed her motion for a Porter hearing; see State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert, denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. | 1 | 1 |
Remeta v. Stovallgreen2 sentences2011The dissent specifically contends that the defendant preserved her claim when she filed her motion for a Porter hearing; see State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S.Ct. 1384 , 140 L.Ed.2d 645 (1998); challenging the admission of the blood test results on chain of custody grounds, and when she subsequently appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's decision to admit those results. 2011The dissent specifically contends that the defendant preserved her claim when she filed her motion for a Porter hearing; see State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert, denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. | 1 | 1 |
Lovilia Coal Co. v. Harveygreen2 sentences2011The dissent specifically contends that the defendant preserved her claim when she filed her motion for a Porter hearing; see State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S.Ct. 1384 , 140 L.Ed.2d 645 (1998); challenging the admission of the blood test results on chain of custody grounds, and when she subsequently appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's decision to admit those results. 2011The dissent specifically contends that the defendant preserved her claim when she filed her motion for a Porter hearing; see State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert, denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huffordgreen2 sentences2001See State v. Hufford, 205 Conn. 386, 397 , 533 A.2d 866 (1987). 2001See State v. Hufford, 205 Conn. 386, 397 , 533 A.2d 866 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Negrongreen2 sentences1995Although we acknowledge that the defendant’s failure to object to the instruction given by the trial court to some extent reflects the fact that the present claim has assumed an importance on appeal that was not evident at trial; see State v. Negron, 221 Conn. 315, 330 , 603 A.2d 1138 (1992); we nevertheless conclude that the defendant properly preserved his claim for review by means of his request to charge. 1995Although we acknowledge that the defendant’s failure to object to the instruction given by the trial court to some extent reflects the fact that the present claim has assumed an importance on appeal that was not evident at trial; see State v. Negron, 221 Conn. 315, 330 , 603 A.2d 1138 (1992); we nevertheless conclude that the defendant properly preserved his claim for review by means of his request to charge. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ashgreen2 sentences1995See State v. Ash, 33 Conn. App. 782, 794-95 , 638 A.2d 633 , rev’d on other grounds, 231 Conn. 484 , 651 A.2d 247 (1994). 1995See State v. Ash, 33 Conn. App. 782, 794-95 , 638 A.2d 633 , rev’d on other grounds, 231 Conn. 484 , 651 A.2d 247 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ashgreen2 sentences1995See State v. Ash, 33 Conn. App. 782, 794-95 , 638 A.2d 633 , rev’d on other grounds, 231 Conn. 484 , 651 A.2d 247 (1994). 1995See State v. Ash, 33 Conn. App. 782, 794-95 , 638 A.2d 633 , rev’d on other grounds, 231 Conn. 484 , 651 A.2d 247 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Duhangreen2 sentences1987See State v. Duhan, 194 Conn. 347, 354 , 481 A.2d 48 (1984). 1987See State v. Duhan, 194 Conn. 347, 354 , 481 A.2d 48 (1984). | 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. Golding
green
2 sentences2001Alternatively, he seeks reversal of his conviction under the plain error doctrine and under the standard of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 8 We assume without deciding that the defendant properly preserved his claim in the trial court. 2001Alternatively, he seeks reversal of his conviction under the plain error doctrine and under the standard of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 8 We assume without deciding that the defendant properly preserved his claim in the trial court. | 2 | 2001–2006 |
State v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2006“A party may preserve for appeal a claim that a jury instruction was improper either by submitting a written request to charge or by taking an exception to the charge as given.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 93 Conn. App. 739, 752 , 890 A.2d 591 , cert. granted on other grounds, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006); see also Practice Book § 42-16; State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 112 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). 2006“A party may preserve for appeal a claim that a jury instruction was improper either by submitting a written request to charge or by taking an exception to the charge as given.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 93 Conn. App. 739, 752 , 890 A.2d 591 , cert. granted on other grounds, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006); see also Practice Book § 42-16; State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 112 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Pereira
green
2 sentences2006“A party may preserve for appeal a claim that a jury instruction was improper either by submitting a written request to charge or by taking an exception to the charge as given.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 93 Conn. App. 739, 752 , 890 A.2d 591 , cert. granted on other grounds, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006); see also Practice Book § 42-16; State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 112 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). 2006“A party may preserve for appeal a claim that a jury instruction was improper either by submitting a written request to charge or by taking an exception to the charge as given.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 93 Conn. App. 739, 752 , 890 A.2d 591 , cert. granted on other grounds, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006); see also Practice Book § 42-16; State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 112 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In re Salvatore P.
green
1 sentence2006“A party may preserve for appeal a claim that a jury instruction was improper either by submitting a written request to charge or by taking an exception to the charge as given.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 93 Conn. App. 739, 752 , 890 A.2d 591 , cert. granted on other grounds, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006); see also Practice Book § 42-16; State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 112 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Pereira
green
1 sentence2006“A party may preserve for appeal a claim that a jury instruction was improper either by submitting a written request to charge or by taking an exception to the charge as given.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 93 Conn. App. 739, 752 , 890 A.2d 591 , cert. granted on other grounds, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006); see also Practice Book § 42-16; State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 112 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2006“A party may preserve for appeal a claim that a jury instruction was improper either by submitting a written request to charge or by taking an exception to the charge as given.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 93 Conn. App. 739, 752 , 890 A.2d 591 , cert. granted on other grounds, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006); see also Practice Book § 42-16; State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 112 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). 2006“A party may preserve for appeal a claim that a jury instruction was improper either by submitting a written request to charge or by taking an exception to the charge as given.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 93 Conn. App. 739, 752 , 890 A.2d 591 , cert. granted on other grounds, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006); see also Practice Book § 42-16; State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 112 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences1998This appeal is controlled by State v. Hamilton, 30 Conn. App. 68, 74-78 , 618 A.2d 1372 (1993), aff'd, 228 Conn. 234 , 636 A.2d 760 (1994). 1998This appeal is controlled by State v. Hamilton, 30 Conn. App. 68, 74-78 , 618 A.2d 1372 (1993), aff'd, 228 Conn. 234 , 636 A.2d 760 (1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Dash
green
2 sentences1998State v. Dash, 242 Conn. 143, 146-47 , 698 A.2d 297 (1997). 1998State v. Dash, 242 Conn. 143, 146-47 , 698 A.2d 297 (1997). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences1998This appeal is controlled by State v. Hamilton, 30 Conn. App. 68, 74-78 , 618 A.2d 1372 (1993), aff'd, 228 Conn. 234 , 636 A.2d 760 (1994). 1998This appeal is controlled by State v. Hamilton, 30 Conn. App. 68, 74-78 , 618 A.2d 1372 (1993), aff'd, 228 Conn. 234 , 636 A.2d 760 (1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Kolich v. Shugrue
green
2 sentences1997“It is an established rule of appellate practice in this state that in order to obtain a full review of claims of error in civil jury cases, parties must raise those errors with the trial court and file a motion to set aside the verdict.” Kolich v. Shugrue, 198 Conn. 322, 325 , 502 A.2d 918 (1986). 1997“It is an established rule of appellate practice in this state that in order to obtain a full review of claims of error in civil jury cases, parties must raise those errors with the trial court and file a motion to set aside the verdict.” Kolich v. Shugrue, 198 Conn. 322, 325 , 502 A.2d 918 (1986). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Tedesco v. City of Stamford
neutral
1 sentence1991“In each case, we recognize that it is the trial court which is in the best position to view the evidence in the context of the case as a whole, and its rulings on the admissibility of evidence are given great deference.” State v. Delgado, supra. “ ‘On appeal, we are limited in our review to a determination of whether, under the circumstances of the case, in exercising its broad discretion, the trial court could legally act as it did, and not whether we, under the same circumstances, would make the same ruling.’ ” State v. Delgado, supra; State v. Aspinall, supra. “The trial court’s ruling on | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Wynter
green
1 sentence1991“In each case, we recognize that it is the trial court which is in the best position to view the evidence in the context of the case as a whole, and its rulings on the admissibility of evidence are given great deference.” State v. Delgado, supra. “ ‘On appeal, we are limited in our review to a determination of whether, under the circumstances of the case, in exercising its broad discretion, the trial court could legally act as it did, and not whether we, under the same circumstances, would make the same ruling.’ ” State v. Delgado, supra; State v. Aspinall, supra. “The trial court’s ruling on | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Aspinall
green
2 sentences1991The defendant properly preserved his claim. “ ‘[N]o precise and universal test of relevancy is furnished by the law, and the question must be determined in each case according to reason and judicial experience.’ ” State v. Delgado, 8 Conn. App. 273, 281 , 513 A.2d 701 (1986); State v. Aspinall, 6 Conn. App. 546, 554 , 506 A.2d 1063 (1986). 1991The defendant properly preserved his claim. “ ‘[N]o precise and universal test of relevancy is furnished by the law, and the question must be determined in each case according to reason and judicial experience.’ ” State v. Delgado, 8 Conn. App. 273, 281 , 513 A.2d 701 (1986); State v. Aspinall, 6 Conn. App. 546, 554 , 506 A.2d 1063 (1986). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Delgado
green
2 sentences1991The defendant properly preserved his claim. “ ‘[N]o precise and universal test of relevancy is furnished by the law, and the question must be determined in each case according to reason and judicial experience.’ ” State v. Delgado, 8 Conn. App. 273, 281 , 513 A.2d 701 (1986); State v. Aspinall, 6 Conn. App. 546, 554 , 506 A.2d 1063 (1986). 1991The defendant properly preserved his claim. “ ‘[N]o precise and universal test of relevancy is furnished by the law, and the question must be determined in each case according to reason and judicial experience.’ ” State v. Delgado, 8 Conn. App. 273, 281 , 513 A.2d 701 (1986); State v. Aspinall, 6 Conn. App. 546, 554 , 506 A.2d 1063 (1986). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Wynter
green
2 sentences1991“In each case, we recognize that it is the trial court which is in the best position to view the evidence in the context of the case as a whole, and its rulings on the admissibility of evidence are given great deference.” State v. Delgado, supra. “ ‘On appeal, we are limited in our review to a determination of whether, under the circumstances of the case, in exercising its broad discretion, the trial court could legally act as it did, and not whether we, under the same circumstances, would make the same ruling.’ ” State v. Delgado, supra; State v. Aspinall, supra. “The trial court’s ruling on 1991“In each case, we recognize that it is the trial court which is in the best position to view the evidence in the context of the case as a whole, and its rulings on the admissibility of evidence are given great deference.” State v. Delgado, supra. “ ‘On appeal, we are limited in our review to a determination of whether, under the circumstances of the case, in exercising its broad discretion, the trial court could legally act as it did, and not whether we, under the same circumstances, would make the same ruling.’ ” State v. Delgado, supra; State v. Aspinall, supra. “The trial court’s ruling on | 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.