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.
9 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lawrence H. Ramming v. United States of America, John Thomas Cloud v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014As summarized by a federal court discussing motions brought pursuant to the analogous federal rule, ‘[l]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the com- plaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undis- puted facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.’ Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). 2014As summarized by a federal court discussing motions brought pursuant to the analogous federal rule, ‘[l]ack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supple- mented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.’ Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001). | 5 | 5 |
Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinneygreen2 sentences2020See Balf Co. v. Spera Construction Co., supra, 222 Conn. 215 (adopting United States Supreme Court’s reasoning in Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 , 173-77, 109 S. Ct. 987 , 103 L. Ed. 2d 146 (1989), to determine whether judgment was final, ‘‘even though the United States Supreme Court was applying [rule 59 (e) of] the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’’ and rule 4 (a) (4) of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure); cf. Paranteau v. DeVita, supra, 208 Conn. 522-23 (adopting United States Supreme Court’s reasoning in determining whether judgment on merits was final for purposes of appeal 2020See Balf Co. v. Spera Construction Co., supra, 222 Conn. 215 (adopting United States Supreme Court’s reasoning in Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 , 173-77, 109 S. Ct. 987 , 103 L. Ed. 2d 146 (1989), to determine whether judgment was final, ‘‘even though the United States Supreme Court was applying [rule 59 (e) of] the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’’ and rule 4 (a) (4) of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure); cf. Paranteau v. DeVita, supra, 208 Conn. 522-23 (adopting United States Supreme Court’s reasoning in determining whether judgment on merits was final for purposes of appeal | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Conboy v. State
green
2 sentences2011Different rules and procedures will apply, depending on the state of the record at the time the motion is filed.” Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 650-51 , 974 A.2d 669 (2009). “[Wjhere a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342, 348 , 977 A.2d 636 (2009). 2011Different rules and procedures will apply, depending on the state of the record at the time the motion is filed.” Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 650-51 , 974 A.2d 669 (2009). “[Wjhere a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342, 348 , 977 A.2d 636 (2009). | 2 | 2010–2011 |
Tool Box, Inc. v. Ogden City Corp.
green
1 sentence2018The analogous federal rule authorizing motions to open judgments is found in Rule 60 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and requires that parties move for relief from a final judgment "within a reasonable time," although motions based on mistake, excusable neglect, previously undiscovered evidence, or fraud must be filed "no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order ...." Federal courts have held that "[b]y its terms, the one-year time limit in Rule 60 (b) runs from the date the judgment was 'entered' in the district court; it does not run from the date of an appellat | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2011Different rules and procedures will apply, depending on the state of the record at the time the motion is filed.” Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 650-51 , 974 A.2d 669 (2009). “[Wjhere a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342, 348 , 977 A.2d 636 (2009). 2011Different rules and procedures will apply, depending on the state of the record at the time the motion is filed.” Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 650-51 , 974 A.2d 669 (2009). “[Wjhere a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342, 348 , 977 A.2d 636 (2009). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
SFP Tisca v. Robin Hill Farm, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000Section 13-31 (d) is substantially similar to Rule 32 (a)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "[W]here a state rule is similar to a federal rule [the court will] review the federal case law to assist [its] interpretation of our rule." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) SFP Tisca v. Robin Hill Farm, Inc. , 244 Conn. 721 , 727-28 , 711 A.2d 1175 (1998). 2000Section 13-31 (d) is substantially similar to Rule 32 (a)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "[W]here a state rule is similar to a federal rule [the court will] review the federal case law to assist [its] interpretation of our rule." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) SFP Tisca v. Robin Hill Farm, Inc. , 244 Conn. 721 , 727-28 , 711 A.2d 1175 (1998). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.