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 2007–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2007This inquiry is guided by an examination of the following factors [set forth in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987)]: the extent to which the [impropriety] was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the [impropriety] • • • the frequency of the [impropriety] . . . the centrality of the [impropriety] to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warholic, supra, 278 Conn. 396 . 1 The first factor we look to is whether the 2007This inquiry is guided by an examination of the following factors [set forth in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987)]: the extent to which the [impropriety] was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the [impropriety] • • • the frequency of the [impropriety] . . . the centrality of the [impropriety] to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warholic, supra, 278 Conn. 396 . 1 The first factor we look to is whether the | 4 | 2007–2016 |
State v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2010These factors include the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jordan, 117 Conn. App. 160, 164 , 978 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 904 , 982 A.2d 648 (2009). 2010These factors include the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jordan, 117 Conn. App. 160, 164 , 978 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 904 , 982 A.2d 648 (2009). | 3 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2010These factors include the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jordan, 117 Conn. App. 160, 164 , 978 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 904 , 982 A.2d 648 (2009). 2010These factors include the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jordan, 117 Conn. App. 160, 164 , 978 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 904 , 982 A.2d 648 (2009). | 3 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Pascal
neutral
2 sentences2016These factors include the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state's case." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pascal , 109 Conn.App. 55 , 67, 950 A.2d 566 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 917 , 957 A.2d 880 (2008). "[W]hen a defendant raises on appeal a claim that improper remarks by the prosecutor deprived the defendant of his consti 2016These factors include the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state's case." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pascal , 109 Conn.App. 55 , 67, 950 A.2d 566 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 917 , 957 A.2d 880 (2008). "[W]hen a defendant raises on appeal a claim that improper remarks by the prosecutor deprived the defendant of his consti | 2 | 2009–2016 |
State v. Pascal
neutral
2 sentences2016These factors include the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state's case." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pascal , 109 Conn.App. 55 , 67, 950 A.2d 566 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 917 , 957 A.2d 880 (2008). "[W]hen a defendant raises on appeal a claim that improper remarks by the prosecutor deprived the defendant of his consti 2016These factors include the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state's case." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pascal , 109 Conn.App. 55 , 67, 950 A.2d 566 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 917 , 957 A.2d 880 (2008). "[W]hen a defendant raises on appeal a claim that improper remarks by the prosecutor deprived the defendant of his consti | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Maner
green
2 sentences2016These factors include the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state's case." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pascal , 109 Conn.App. 55 , 67, 950 A.2d 566 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 917 , 957 A.2d 880 (2008). "[W]hen a defendant raises on appeal a claim that improper remarks by the prosecutor deprived the defendant of his consti 2016These factors include the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state's case." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pascal , 109 Conn.App. 55 , 67, 950 A.2d 566 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 917 , 957 A.2d 880 (2008). "[W]hen a defendant raises on appeal a claim that improper remarks by the prosecutor deprived the defendant of his consti | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2015State v. Williams, supra, 204 Conn. 540 . 3 We granted the state’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the prosecutor’s improprieties during cross-examination and final argument vio- lated the defendant’s due process rights?’’ State v. Jones, 307 Conn. 957 , 59 A.3d 1192 (2013). 2015State v. Williams, supra, 204 Conn. 540 . 3 We granted the state’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the prosecutor’s improprieties during cross-examination and final argument vio- lated the defendant’s due process rights?’’ State v. Jones, 307 Conn. 957 , 59 A.3d 1192 (2013). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Carbone
neutral
2 sentences2012The Williams factors include “the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carbone, 116 Conn. App. 801, 811 , 977 A.2d 694 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 904 , 982 A.2d 647 (2009). *808 Here, it is apparent from the record that the improper comment was not invited by defense conduct. 2012The Williams factors include “the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carbone, 116 Conn. App. 801, 811 , 977 A.2d 694 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 904 , 982 A.2d 647 (2009). *808 Here, it is apparent from the record that the improper comment was not invited by defense conduct. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Carbone
neutral
2 sentences2012The Williams factors include “the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carbone, 116 Conn. App. 801, 811 , 977 A.2d 694 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 904 , 982 A.2d 647 (2009). *808 Here, it is apparent from the record that the improper comment was not invited by defense conduct. 2012The Williams factors include “the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the critical issues in the case, the effectiveness of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carbone, 116 Conn. App. 801, 811 , 977 A.2d 694 , cert. denied, 294 Conn. 904 , 982 A.2d 647 (2009). *808 Here, it is apparent from the record that the improper comment was not invited by defense conduct. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Warholic
green
2 sentences2007This inquiry is guided by an examination of the following factors [set forth in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987)]: the extent to which the [impropriety] was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the [impropriety] . . . the frequency of the [impropriety] . . . the centrality of the [impropriety] to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state's case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warholic, supra, 278 Conn. at 396 , 897 A.2d 569 . 1 The first factor we look 2007This inquiry is guided by an examination of the following factors [set forth in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987)]: the extent to which the [impropriety] was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the [impropriety] . . . the frequency of the [impropriety] . . . the centrality of the [impropriety] to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state's case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warholic, supra, 278 Conn. at 396 , 897 A.2d 569 . 1 The first factor we look | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.