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 3 courts 1988–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Heigl v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences1995See Heigl v. Board of Education, 218 Conn. 1, 2 , 587 A.2d 423 (1991). 1995See Heigl v. Board of Education, 218 Conn. 1, 2 , 587 A.2d 423 (1991). | 2 | 2 |
Spinnato v. Boydgreen1 sentence2025Moreover, because the defendant’s appeal challenges only the reasonableness of the fees sought, not the court’s decision to award fees; see Spinnato v. Boyd, 231 Conn. App. 460 , 483 n.12, A.3d (2025) (noting that defendant may appeal from final determination court makes as to plain- tiff’s requested fees); Iino v. Spalter, 192 Conn. App. 421 , 457, 218 A.3d 152 (2019) (‘‘[the] postjudgment determination [of the amount of the attorney’s fees] will be a separately appealable final judgment as to the reasonableness of the fees awarded’’); the defendant may raise that challenge following the cour | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Allengreen2 sentences2025See Allen v. Allen, 134 Conn. App. 486, 503 , 39 A.3d 1190 (2012) (holding that court exceeded its discretion in awarding attorney’s 1 The defendant argues: ‘‘The fees appeared to be very high. 2025See Allen v. Allen, 134 Conn. App. 486, 503 , 39 A.3d 1190 (2012) (holding that court exceeded its discretion in awarding attorney’s 1 The defendant argues: ‘‘The fees appeared to be very high. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stevensongreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Stevenson , 269 Conn. 563 , 573-74, 849 A.2d 626 (2004). 2017See, e.g., State v. Stevenson , 269 Conn. 563 , 573-74, 849 A.2d 626 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authoritygreen2 sentences2000See Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 , 170-72 , 544 A.2d 1185 (1988). 2000See Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 , 170-72 , 544 A.2d 1185 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Northrop v. Town of Clintongreen1 sentence1990See Northrup v. Town of Clinton, supra, 32 . | 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. Jones
green
2 sentences1998“Whether a defendant may raise a defense of double jeopardy on appeal, when that issue was not raised at trial, is a question that [our Supreme Court] addressed, and resolved against the defendant in State v. Jones, 166 Conn. 620 , 353 A.2d 764 (1974). 1998“Whether a defendant may raise a defense of double jeopardy on appeal, when that issue was not raised at trial, is a question that [our Supreme Court] addressed, and resolved against the defendant in State v. Jones, 166 Conn. 620 , 353 A.2d 764 (1974). | 3 | 1988–1998 |
State v. Pelletier
green
2 sentences2022Specifically, we have held that ‘‘the failure by [a defendant] fully to challenge the [ruling of the trial court] at trial would not be dispos- itive [of whether the defendant may raise the claim], [if] his codefendant [who was tried jointly] adequately alerted the trial court to the possibility of error in a timely fashion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dahlgren, 200 Conn. 586 , 599–600 n.9, 512 A.2d 906 (1986), quoting State v. Pelletier, 196 Conn. 32, 34 , 490 A.2d 515 (1985). 2022Specifically, we have held that ‘‘the failure by [a defendant] fully to challenge the [ruling of the trial court] at trial would not be dispos- itive [of whether the defendant may raise the claim], [if] his codefendant [who was tried jointly] adequately alerted the trial court to the possibility of error in a timely fashion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dahlgren, 200 Conn. 586 , 599–600 n.9, 512 A.2d 906 (1986), quoting State v. Pelletier, 196 Conn. 32, 34 , 490 A.2d 515 (1985). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Dahlgren
green
2 sentences2022Specifically, we have held that ‘‘the failure by [a defendant] fully to challenge the [ruling of the trial court] at trial would not be dispos- itive [of whether the defendant may raise the claim], [if] his codefendant [who was tried jointly] adequately alerted the trial court to the possibility of error in a timely fashion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dahlgren, 200 Conn. 586 , 599–600 n.9, 512 A.2d 906 (1986), quoting State v. Pelletier, 196 Conn. 32, 34 , 490 A.2d 515 (1985). 2022Specifically, we have held that ‘‘the failure by [a defendant] fully to challenge the [ruling of the trial court] at trial would not be dispos- itive [of whether the defendant may raise the claim], [if] his codefendant [who was tried jointly] adequately alerted the trial court to the possibility of error in a timely fashion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dahlgren, 200 Conn. 586 , 599–600 n.9, 512 A.2d 906 (1986), quoting State v. Pelletier, 196 Conn. 32, 34 , 490 A.2d 515 (1985). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Price
green
2 sentences1998There, as in [State v. Price, 208 Conn. 387, 544 , A.2d 184 (1988)] the defendant ‘proceeded to trial, verdict and judgment without raising [a double jeopardy] claim.’ [State v. Jones, supra], 630 . [Our Supreme Court] held that ‘in so doing he impliedly waived the defense of double jeopardy, and, therefore, that issue [was] not before [the court] for determination on the merits.’ Id.” State v. Price, supra, 390 . 1998There, as in [State v. Price, 208 Conn. 387, 544 , A.2d 184 (1988)] the defendant ‘proceeded to trial, verdict and judgment without raising [a double jeopardy] claim.’ [State v. Jones, supra], 630 . [Our Supreme Court] held that ‘in so doing he impliedly waived the defense of double jeopardy, and, therefore, that issue [was] not before [the court] for determination on the merits.’ Id.” State v. Price, supra, 390 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.