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.
10 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2007 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. Kellygreen2 sentences2007Anything else?” Defense counsel responded: “No, nothing from the defense, Your Honor." 8 Whether Wynn had a valid fifth amendment privilege to assert regarding the statement he gave to police cannot be reviewed, as those questions were never asked. 9 See State v. Kelly, 256 Conn. 23 , 30 n.4, 770 A.2d 908 (2001) (“[w]e use the initials of . . . venirepersons to protect their privacy”). 10 Prior to the court’s recharging the jury, defense counsel objected to the proposed recharge on the same grounds as in his first objection. 11 Defense counsel objected to the recharge on two grounds. 2007Anything else?” Defense counsel responded: “No, nothing from the defense, Your Honor." 8 Whether Wynn had a valid fifth amendment privilege to assert regarding the statement he gave to police cannot be reviewed, as those questions were never asked. 9 See State v. Kelly, 256 Conn. 23 , 30 n.4, 770 A.2d 908 (2001) (“[w]e use the initials of . . . venirepersons to protect their privacy”). 10 Prior to the court’s recharging the jury, defense counsel objected to the proposed recharge on the same grounds as in his first objection. 11 Defense counsel objected to the recharge on two grounds. | 1 | 1 |
Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance v. Kearneygreen1 sentence1924Co. v. Kearney, 180 U. S. 132, 136, 21 Sup. Ct. 326: “To the general rule there is an apparent exception in the case of contracts of insurance, namely, that where a policy of insurance is so framed as to leave room for two constructions, the word used should be interpreted most strongly against the insurer. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sachs v. Nussenbaum
neutral
2 sentences1975The provision in General Statutes § 49-37 for the dissolution of a mechanic’s lien upon the substitution of a bond does not afford adequate *384 relief, since the authority of the court is limited, to the issuance of an order dissolving the lien only upon the substitution of a bond “in such amount as a court of competent jurisdiction may adjudge to have been secured by such lien.” In such a proceeding, “[t]he office of the judge before whom the application is pending, is to discover the amount of the plaintiff’s apparent claim, and not to pass upon its legal validity or to weigh the chances of 1975The provision in General Statutes § 49-37 for the dissolution of a mechanic’s lien upon the substitution of a bond does not afford adequate *384 relief, since the authority of the court is limited, to the issuance of an order dissolving the lien only upon the substitution of a bond “in such amount as a court of competent jurisdiction may adjudge to have been secured by such lien.” In such a proceeding, “[t]he office of the judge before whom the application is pending, is to discover the amount of the plaintiff’s apparent claim, and not to pass upon its legal validity or to weigh the chances of | 2 | 1956–1975 |
State v. Cecarelli
green
2 sentences2007We thus conclude that the defendant’s apparent claim of factual inconsistency of the verdict is without merit. 6 See State v. Cecarelli, 32 Conn. App. 811, 820 , 631 A.2d 862 (1993) (holding that trial court improperly accepted blanket assertion of witness’ fifth amendment privilege from witness’ attorney without having witness take witness stand thereby delegating its authority to witness’ attorney). 7 In response to defense counsel’s request that Wynn be forced to testify or be granted immunity to testify, the court replied: “I will not go behind the reasons why counsel and his client have e 2007We thus conclude that the defendant’s apparent claim of factual inconsistency of the verdict is without merit. 6 See State v. Cecarelli, 32 Conn. App. 811, 820 , 631 A.2d 862 (1993) (holding that trial court improperly accepted blanket assertion of witness’ fifth amendment privilege from witness’ attorney without having witness take witness stand thereby delegating its authority to witness’ attorney). 7 In response to defense counsel’s request that Wynn be forced to testify or be granted immunity to testify, the court replied: “I will not go behind the reasons why counsel and his client have e | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Riccio v. Abate
green
2 sentences1988In contrast to the trial court’s apparent analysis of the verdict as an improperly expressed defendant’s verdict, 3 the Appellate Court found that the damage award “appeared to have been motivated by sympathy for the defendant.” Id., 447 . “ ‘On appeal, the conclusion of the trial court from the vantage point of the trial bench cannot be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.’ ” Riccio v. Abate, 176 Conn. 415, 417 , 407 A.2d 1005 (1979). 1988In contrast to the trial court’s apparent analysis of the verdict as an improperly expressed defendant’s verdict, 3 the Appellate Court found that the damage award “appeared to have been motivated by sympathy for the defendant.” Id., 447 . “ ‘On appeal, the conclusion of the trial court from the vantage point of the trial bench cannot be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.’ ” Riccio v. Abate, 176 Conn. 415, 417 , 407 A.2d 1005 (1979). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
D'Andrea v. Rende
green
2 sentences1956Sachs v. Nussenbaum, 92 Conn. 682, 687 , 104 A. 393 ; D’Andrea v. Rende, 123 Conn. 377, 380 , 195 A. 741 . 1956Sachs v. Nussenbaum, 92 Conn. 682, 687 , 104 A. 393 ; D’Andrea v. Rende, 123 Conn. 377, 380 , 195 A. 741 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Deregibus v. Silberman Furniture Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1948Paul’s Church was a tenant at will of the plaintiff and that under our decision in Deregibus v. Silberman Furniture Go., 121 Conn. 633, 638 , 186 A. 553 , its use of the way could not inure to the benefit of the plaintiff, because user by a tenant of land not a part of the occupied premises will not avail the owner. 1948Paul’s Church was a tenant at will of the plaintiff and that under our decision in Deregibus v. Silberman Furniture Go., 121 Conn. 633, 638 , 186 A. 553 , its use of the way could not inure to the benefit of the plaintiff, because user by a tenant of land not a part of the occupied premises will not avail the owner. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Bryant Electric Co. v. Stein
neutral
2 sentences1931Bryant Electric Co. v. Stein, 95 Conn. 211, 216 , 111 Atl. 204 . 1931Bryant Electric Co. v. Stein, 95 Conn. 211, 216 , 111 Atl. 204 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Walden v. Siebert
green
2 sentences1927Walden v. Siebert, 102 Conn. 353, 359 , 128 Atl. 702 . 1927Walden v. Siebert, 102 Conn. 353, 359 , 128 Atl. 702 . | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Smith v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
green
1 sentence1924The exception rests upon the ground that the company’s attorneys, officers or agents prepared the policy, and it is its language that must be interpreted.” See also Smith v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (N. J.), 120 Atl. 322 . | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Ward v. Cobb
green
2 sentences1921In fact the authorities are all one way on this question, the only apparent exception being Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250 .” See also Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 , 20 N. E. 174 ; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451 , 55 Pac. 147 ; Veazie v. Parker, 72 Me. 443 ; Whitaker v. Engle, 111 Mich. 205 , 69 N. W. 493 ; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N. E. 134 ; Plant v. Thompson, 42 Kan. 664 , 22 Pac. 726 ; and the elaborate note to Lunney v. Healey, 44 L. 1921In fact the authorities are all one way on this question, the only apparent exception being Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250 .” See also Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 , 20 N. E. 174 ; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451 , 55 Pac. 147 ; Veazie v. Parker, 72 Me. 443 ; Whitaker v. Engle, 111 Mich. 205 , 69 N. W. 493 ; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N. E. 134 ; Plant v. Thompson, 42 Kan. 664 , 22 Pac. 726 ; and the elaborate note to Lunney v. Healey, 44 L. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Plant v. Thompson
green
1 sentence1921In fact the authorities are all one way on this question, the only apparent exception being Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250 .” See also Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 , 20 N. E. 174 ; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451 , 55 Pac. 147 ; Veazie v. Parker, 72 Me. 443 ; Whitaker v. Engle, 111 Mich. 205 , 69 N. W. 493 ; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N. E. 134 ; Plant v. Thompson, 42 Kan. 664 , 22 Pac. 726 ; and the elaborate note to Lunney v. Healey, 44 L. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Richards v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1921In fact the authorities are all one way on this question, the only apparent exception being Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250 .” See also Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 , 20 N. E. 174 ; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451 , 55 Pac. 147 ; Veazie v. Parker, 72 Me. 443 ; Whitaker v. Engle, 111 Mich. 205 , 69 N. W. 493 ; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N. E. 134 ; Plant v. Thompson, 42 Kan. 664 , 22 Pac. 726 ; and the elaborate note to Lunney v. Healey, 44 L. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Whitaker v. Engle
green
2 sentences1921In fact the authorities are all one way on this question, the only apparent exception being Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250 .” See also Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 , 20 N. E. 174 ; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451 , 55 Pac. 147 ; Veazie v. Parker, 72 Me. 443 ; Whitaker v. Engle, 111 Mich. 205 , 69 N. W. 493 ; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N. E. 134 ; Plant v. Thompson, 42 Kan. 664 , 22 Pac. 726 ; and the elaborate note to Lunney v. Healey, 44 L. 1921In fact the authorities are all one way on this question, the only apparent exception being Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250 .” See also Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 , 20 N. E. 174 ; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451 , 55 Pac. 147 ; Veazie v. Parker, 72 Me. 443 ; Whitaker v. Engle, 111 Mich. 205 , 69 N. W. 493 ; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N. E. 134 ; Plant v. Thompson, 42 Kan. 664 , 22 Pac. 726 ; and the elaborate note to Lunney v. Healey, 44 L. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Levy v. Metropolitan National Bank of Chicago
green
1 sentence1921In fact the authorities are all one way on this question, the only apparent exception being Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250 .” See also Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 , 20 N. E. 174 ; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451 , 55 Pac. 147 ; Veazie v. Parker, 72 Me. 443 ; Whitaker v. Engle, 111 Mich. 205 , 69 N. W. 493 ; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N. E. 134 ; Plant v. Thompson, 42 Kan. 664 , 22 Pac. 726 ; and the elaborate note to Lunney v. Healey, 44 L. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Wilson v. Mason
green
1 sentence1921In fact the authorities are all one way on this question, the only apparent exception being Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250 .” See also Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 , 20 N. E. 174 ; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451 , 55 Pac. 147 ; Veazie v. Parker, 72 Me. 443 ; Whitaker v. Engle, 111 Mich. 205 , 69 N. W. 493 ; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N. E. 134 ; Plant v. Thompson, 42 Kan. 664 , 22 Pac. 726 ; and the elaborate note to Lunney v. Healey, 44 L. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Coward v. Clanton
green
2 sentences1921In fact the authorities are all one way on this question, the only apparent exception being Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250 .” See also Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 , 20 N. E. 174 ; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451 , 55 Pac. 147 ; Veazie v. Parker, 72 Me. 443 ; Whitaker v. Engle, 111 Mich. 205 , 69 N. W. 493 ; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N. E. 134 ; Plant v. Thompson, 42 Kan. 664 , 22 Pac. 726 ; and the elaborate note to Lunney v. Healey, 44 L. 1921In fact the authorities are all one way on this question, the only apparent exception being Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250 .” See also Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 , 20 N. E. 174 ; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451 , 55 Pac. 147 ; Veazie v. Parker, 72 Me. 443 ; Whitaker v. Engle, 111 Mich. 205 , 69 N. W. 493 ; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N. E. 134 ; Plant v. Thompson, 42 Kan. 664 , 22 Pac. 726 ; and the elaborate note to Lunney v. Healey, 44 L. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Veazie v. Parker
neutral
1 sentence1921In fact the authorities are all one way on this question, the only apparent exception being Richards v. Jackson, 31 Md. 250 .” See also Ward v. Cobb, 148 Mass. 518 , 20 N. E. 174 ; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 451 , 55 Pac. 147 ; Veazie v. Parker, 72 Me. 443 ; Whitaker v. Engle, 111 Mich. 205 , 69 N. W. 493 ; Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill. 304 , 42 N. E. 134 ; Plant v. Thompson, 42 Kan. 664 , 22 Pac. 726 ; and the elaborate note to Lunney v. Healey, 44 L. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Boon v. Ætna Insurance
green
1 sentence1905Co., 40 Conn. 575, 586 . “ To the general rule there is an apparent exception in the case of contracts of insurance, namely, that where a policy of insurance is so framed as to leave room for two constructions, the words used should he interpreted most strongly against the insurer. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
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.