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 1986–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Morris Hallgreen1 sentence1986United States v. Hall, 523 F.2d 665, 667 (2d Cir. 1975); Riccardi v. United States, 428 F. Sup. 1059, 1064-65 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 573 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1977). “[Prisoners are not entitled and need not be permitted to make bald charges of mental incompetency to stand trial for the purpose simply of obtaining an excursion from the penitentiary. . . . | 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. Lloyd
green
2 sentences1993The decision to grant a hearing requires the exercise of sound judicial discretion.” State v. Lloyd, 199 Conn. 359, 366 , 507 A.2d 992 (1986); State v. Johnson, supra, 488-89 . 1993The decision to grant a hearing requires the exercise of sound judicial discretion.” State v. Lloyd, 199 Conn. 359, 366 , 507 A.2d 992 (1986); State v. Johnson, supra, 488-89 . | 8 | 1989–2017 |
Chicano v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences2012IV The defendant claims that the court erred in convicting him of conspiracy to commit false statement in the second degree in violation of § 53a-157b, 15 and of conspiracy to fabricate physical evidence in violation of § 53a-155, 16 because these multiple convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. 17 In his main brief, the defendant argues that the appropriate remedy, pursuant to State v. Chicano, 216 Conn. 699, 724-25 , 584 A.2d 425 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1254 , 111 S. Ct. 2898 , 115 L. Ed. 2d 1062 (1991), for such a violation is to remand the matter 2012IV The defendant claims that the court erred in convicting him of conspiracy to commit false statement in the second degree in violation of § 53a-157b, 15 and of conspiracy to fabricate physical evidence in violation of § 53a-155, 16 because these multiple convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. 17 In his main brief, the defendant argues that the appropriate remedy, pursuant to State v. Chicano, 216 Conn. 699, 724-25 , 584 A.2d 425 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1254 , 111 S. Ct. 2898 , 115 L. Ed. 2d 1062 (1991), for such a violation is to remand the matter | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Chicano
red
2 sentences2012IV The defendant claims that the court erred in convicting him of conspiracy to commit false statement in the second degree in violation of § 53a-157b, 15 and of conspiracy to fabricate physical evidence in violation of § 53a-155, 16 because these multiple convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. 17 In his main brief, the defendant argues that the appropriate remedy, pursuant to State v. Chicano, 216 Conn. 699, 724-25 , 584 A.2d 425 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1254 , 111 S. Ct. 2898 , 115 L. Ed. 2d 1062 (1991), for such a violation is to remand the matter 2012IV The defendant claims that the court erred in convicting him of conspiracy to commit false statement in the second degree in violation of § 53a-157b, 15 and of conspiracy to fabricate physical evidence in violation of § 53a-155, 16 because these multiple convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. 17 In his main brief, the defendant argues that the appropriate remedy, pursuant to State v. Chicano, 216 Conn. 699, 724-25 , 584 A.2d 425 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1254 , 111 S. Ct. 2898 , 115 L. Ed. 2d 1062 (1991), for such a violation is to remand the matter | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Reddick
green
2 sentences1993“In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling. . . .Reversal is required only where an abuse of discretion is manifest or where injustice appears to have been done.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 224 Conn. 445, 467 , 619 A.2d 453 (1993). 1993“In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling. . . .Reversal is required only where an abuse of discretion is manifest or where injustice appears to have been done.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reddick, 224 Conn. 445, 467 , 619 A.2d 453 (1993). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Riccardi v. United States
green
1 sentence1986United States v. Hall, 523 F.2d 665, 667 (2d Cir. 1975); Riccardi v. United States, 428 F. Sup. 1059, 1064-65 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 573 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1977). “[Prisoners are not entitled and need not be permitted to make bald charges of mental incompetency to stand trial for the purpose simply of obtaining an excursion from the penitentiary. . . . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.