9 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1930–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bellonio v. v. R. Thomas Mortgage Co.green2 sentences2000Credit Corp., supra, 150 Conn. 192 ; see Bleidner v. Searles, 19 Conn. App. 76, 78 , 561 A.2d 954 (1989). “ ‘The salutary purpose of the statute is that if a party has a meritorious defense and has been deprived of reasonable opportunity to present it, he ought to be permitted to make it upon another trial.’ Bellonio v. Thomas Mortgage Co., 111 Conn. 103, 105 , 149 A. 218 [1930].’ ” Krooner v. State, 137 Conn. 58, 60 , 75 A.2d 51 (1950); E. 2000Credit Corp., supra, 150 Conn. 192 ; see Bleidner v. Searles, 19 Conn. App. 76, 78 , 561 A.2d 954 (1989). “ ‘The salutary purpose of the statute is that if a party has a meritorious defense and has been deprived of reasonable opportunity to present it, he ought to be permitted to make it upon another trial.’ Bellonio v. Thomas Mortgage Co., 111 Conn. 103, 105 , 149 A. 218 [1930].’ ” Krooner v. State, 137 Conn. 58, 60 , 75 A.2d 51 (1950); E. | 1 | 5 |
Krooner v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Credit Corp., supra, 150 Conn. 192 ; see Bleidner v. Searles, 19 Conn. App. 76, 78 , 561 A.2d 954 (1989). “ ‘The salutary purpose of the statute is that if a party has a meritorious defense and has been deprived of reasonable opportunity to present it, he ought to be permitted to make it upon another trial.’ Bellonio v. Thomas Mortgage Co., 111 Conn. 103, 105 , 149 A. 218 [1930].’ ” Krooner v. State, 137 Conn. 58, 60 , 75 A.2d 51 (1950); E. 2000Credit Corp., supra, 150 Conn. 192 ; see Bleidner v. Searles, 19 Conn. App. 76, 78 , 561 A.2d 954 (1989). “ ‘The salutary purpose of the statute is that if a party has a meritorious defense and has been deprived of reasonable opportunity to present it, he ought to be permitted to make it upon another trial.’ Bellonio v. Thomas Mortgage Co., 111 Conn. 103, 105 , 149 A. 218 [1930].’ ” Krooner v. State, 137 Conn. 58, 60 , 75 A.2d 51 (1950); E. | 1 | 2 |
Bleidner v. Searlesgreen2 sentences2000Credit Corp., supra, 150 Conn. 192 ; see Bleidner v. Searles, 19 Conn. App. 76, 78 , 561 A.2d 954 (1989). “ ‘The salutary purpose of the statute is that if a party has a meritorious defense and has been deprived of reasonable opportunity to present it, he ought to be permitted to make it upon another trial.’ Bellonio v. Thomas Mortgage Co., 111 Conn. 103, 105 , 149 A. 218 [1930].’ ” Krooner v. State, 137 Conn. 58, 60 , 75 A.2d 51 (1950); E. 2000Credit Corp., supra, 150 Conn. 192 ; see Bleidner v. Searles, 19 Conn. App. 76, 78 , 561 A.2d 954 (1989). “ ‘The salutary purpose of the statute is that if a party has a meritorious defense and has been deprived of reasonable opportunity to present it, he ought to be permitted to make it upon another trial.’ Bellonio v. Thomas Mortgage Co., 111 Conn. 103, 105 , 149 A. 218 [1930].’ ” Krooner v. State, 137 Conn. 58, 60 , 75 A.2d 51 (1950); E. | 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. Grimes
green
2 sentences2013The salutary purpose of the statute is that if a party has a meritorious defense and has been deprived of reasonable opportunity to present it, he ought to be permitted to make it upon another trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Grimes, 154 Conn. 314, 325 , 228 A.2d 141 (1966). 2013The salutary purpose of the statute is that if a party has a meritorious defense and has been deprived of reasonable opportunity to present it, he ought to be permitted to make it upon another trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Grimes, 154 Conn. 314, 325 , 228 A.2d 141 (1966). | 3 | 1981–2013 |
Carrington v. Holabird
green
1 sentence1930Carrington v. Holabird, supra. But it is equally true that if a defaulted defendant is unable or fails to make a reasonable showing that he has such a defense, which he could present and make available if granted the opportunity, there is no such indication of a probable failure of justice as should and would cause the court to feel bound in duty to grant a new trial. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
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.