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 2 courts 1984–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Frank W. Winstongreen2 sentences1992Del. 1979)], quoting United States v. Winston, [ 447 F.2d 1236, 1240 (D.C. 1986“The doctrine of opening the door cannot, of course, ‘be “subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.” ’ United States v. Lum, [supra, 335], quoting United States v. Winston, [supra, 1240 ].”State v. Glenn, supra. The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant further inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it “ ‘only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence.’ California Ins. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Griggsgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Griggs, 288 Conn. 116, 141 , 951 A.2d 531 (2008) (‘‘[t]he doctrine of opening the door cannot . . . be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2023See State v. Griggs, 288 Conn. 116, 141 , 951 A.2d 531 (2008) (‘‘[t]he doctrine of opening the door cannot . . . be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
California Insurance Company v. A. L. Allen and Dovie Moore Allengreen1 sentence1986Co. v. Allen, 235 F.2d 178, 180 (5th Cir. 1956).” United States v. Winston, supra. Thus, in making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal. | 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. Graham
green
2 sentences2026“The doctrine of opening the door cannot, of course, be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Graham, 200 Conn. 9, 13 , 509 A.2d 493 (1986). 2026“The doctrine of opening the door cannot, of course, be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Graham, 200 Conn. 9, 13 , 509 A.2d 493 (1986). | 4 | 2001–2026 |
State v. Solomon
green
2 sentences2025The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant further inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Solomon, 141 Conn. App. 270 , 278-79, 60 A.3d 1039 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 939 , 66 A.3d 881 2025The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant further inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Solomon, 141 Conn. App. 270 , 278-79, 60 A.3d 1039 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 939 , 66 A.3d 881 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2013The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant farther inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Phillips, 102 Conn. App. 716, 733-34 , 927 A.2d 931 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 2013The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant farther inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Phillips, 102 Conn. App. 716, 733-34 , 927 A.2d 931 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2013The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant farther inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Phillips, 102 Conn. App. 716, 733-34 , 927 A.2d 931 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 2013The trial court must carefully consider whether the circumstances of the case warrant farther inquiry into the subject matter, and should permit it only to the extent necessary to remove any unfair prejudice which might otherwise have ensued from the original evidence. . . . [I]n making its determination, the trial court should balance the harm to the state in restricting the inquiry with the prejudice suffered by the defendant in allowing the rebuttal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Phillips, 102 Conn. App. 716, 733-34 , 927 A.2d 931 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Morascini
green
2 sentences2002The doctrine of opening the door cannot, of course, be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Morascini, 62 Conn. App. 758, 766 , 772 A.2d 703 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 921 , 774 A.2d 141 (2001). 2002The doctrine of opening the door cannot, of course, be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Morascini, 62 Conn. App. 758, 766 , 772 A.2d 703 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 921 , 774 A.2d 141 (2001). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Morascini
green
2 sentences2002The doctrine of opening the door cannot, of course, be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Morascini, 62 Conn. App. 758, 766 , 772 A.2d 703 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 921 , 774 A.2d 141 (2001). 2002The doctrine of opening the door cannot, of course, be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Morascini, 62 Conn. App. 758, 766 , 772 A.2d 703 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 921 , 774 A.2d 141 (2001). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.