party opponent exception in Connecticut

9 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2014 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Martins v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.green connappct · 1994 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1995–2000 2 sentences 2000“Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission.” Martins v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 35 Conn. App. 212, 228 , 645 A.2d 557 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 915 , 648 A.2d 154 (1994). 2000“Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission.” Martins v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 35 Conn. App. 212, 228 , 645 A.2d 557 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 915 , 648 A.2d 154 (1994).	1	4
Bell Food Services, Inc. v. Sherbacowgreen conn · 1991 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2001–2009 2 sentences 2009“Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Markeveys, 56 Conn. App. 716, 719 , 745 A.2d 212 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000); see also Bell Food Services, Inc. v. Sherbacow, 217 Conn. 476, 489 , 586 A.2d 1157 (1991) (plaintiffs could not offer statement of persons other than defendant as statement of party opponent); DeMarkey v. Fratturo, 80 Conn. App. 650, 655 , 836 A.2d 1257 (2003) (“[t]o fall within [party opponent] exception, on 2009“Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Markeveys, 56 Conn. App. 716, 719 , 745 A.2d 212 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000); see also Bell Food Services, Inc. v. Sherbacow, 217 Conn. 476, 489 , 586 A.2d 1157 (1991) (plaintiffs could not offer statement of persons other than defendant as statement of party opponent); DeMarkey v. Fratturo, 80 Conn. App. 650, 655 , 836 A.2d 1257 (2003) (“[t]o fall within [party opponent] exception, on	1	2
Demarkey v. Fratturogreen connappct · 2003 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009“Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Markeveys, 56 Conn. App. 716, 719 , 745 A.2d 212 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000); see also Bell Food Services, Inc. v. Sherbacow, 217 Conn. 476, 489 , 586 A.2d 1157 (1991) (plaintiffs could not offer statement of persons other than defendant as statement of party opponent); DeMarkey v. Fratturo, 80 Conn. App. 650, 655 , 836 A.2d 1257 (2003) (“[t]o fall within [party opponent] exception, on 2009“Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Markeveys, 56 Conn. App. 716, 719 , 745 A.2d 212 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000); see also Bell Food Services, Inc. v. Sherbacow, 217 Conn. 476, 489 , 586 A.2d 1157 (1991) (plaintiffs could not offer statement of persons other than defendant as statement of party opponent); DeMarkey v. Fratturo, 80 Conn. App. 650, 655 , 836 A.2d 1257 (2003) (“[t]o fall within [party opponent] exception, on	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Mastronardi v. Infante green conn · 1994 2 sentences 2000"Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission ." (Emphasis added.) Martins v. Connecticut Light Power Co. , 35 Conn. App. 212 , 228 , 645 A.2d 557 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 915 , 648 A.2d 154 (1994); see also Metro North Commuter Railroad v. Tanz , Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 135960 (March 7, 1997, D'Andrea, J .) (holding that the conclusive effect of the defendant's failure to respond to a request for admission is admissible only against that party an 2000“Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission.” Martins v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 35 Conn. App. 212, 228 , 645 A.2d 557 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 915 , 648 A.2d 154 (1994).	5	1995–2000
In re Emmanuel M. green conn · 1994 2 sentences 2000"Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission ." (Emphasis added.) Martins v. Connecticut Light Power Co. , 35 Conn. App. 212 , 228 , 645 A.2d 557 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 915 , 648 A.2d 154 (1994); see also Metro North Commuter Railroad v. Tanz , Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 135960 (March 7, 1997, D'Andrea, J .) (holding that the conclusive effect of the defendant's failure to respond to a request for admission is admissible only against that party an 2000“Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission.” Martins v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 35 Conn. App. 212, 228 , 645 A.2d 557 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 915 , 648 A.2d 154 (1994).	4	1995–2000
Robles v. Lavin green conn · 1978 2 sentences 2014Robles v. Lavin, 176 Conn. 281, 284 , 407 A.2d 959 (1978). 2014Robles v. Lavin, 176 Conn. 281, 284 , 407 A.2d 959 (1978).	1	2014–2014
State v. Markeveys green conn · 2000 1 sentence 2009“Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Markeveys, 56 Conn. App. 716, 719 , 745 A.2d 212 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000); see also Bell Food Services, Inc. v. Sherbacow, 217 Conn. 476, 489 , 586 A.2d 1157 (1991) (plaintiffs could not offer statement of persons other than defendant as statement of party opponent); DeMarkey v. Fratturo, 80 Conn. App. 650, 655 , 836 A.2d 1257 (2003) (“[t]o fall within [party opponent] exception, on	1	2009–2009
State v. Dupree green conn · 2000 1 sentence 2009“Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Markeveys, 56 Conn. App. 716, 719 , 745 A.2d 212 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000); see also Bell Food Services, Inc. v. Sherbacow, 217 Conn. 476, 489 , 586 A.2d 1157 (1991) (plaintiffs could not offer statement of persons other than defendant as statement of party opponent); DeMarkey v. Fratturo, 80 Conn. App. 650, 655 , 836 A.2d 1257 (2003) (“[t]o fall within [party opponent] exception, on	1	2009–2009
State v. Markeveys green connappct · 2000 2 sentences 2009“Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Markeveys, 56 Conn. App. 716, 719 , 745 A.2d 212 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000); see also Bell Food Services, Inc. v. Sherbacow, 217 Conn. 476, 489 , 586 A.2d 1157 (1991) (plaintiffs could not offer statement of persons other than defendant as statement of party opponent); DeMarkey v. Fratturo, 80 Conn. App. 650, 655 , 836 A.2d 1257 (2003) (“[t]o fall within [party opponent] exception, on 2009“Under the admissions of a party opponent exception to the hearsay rule, evidence must be offered against the party that made the admission.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Markeveys, 56 Conn. App. 716, 719 , 745 A.2d 212 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000); see also Bell Food Services, Inc. v. Sherbacow, 217 Conn. 476, 489 , 586 A.2d 1157 (1991) (plaintiffs could not offer statement of persons other than defendant as statement of party opponent); DeMarkey v. Fratturo, 80 Conn. App. 650, 655 , 836 A.2d 1257 (2003) (“[t]o fall within [party opponent] exception, on	1	2009–2009
In re Zoarski green conn · 1993 2 sentences 1994State v. Woodson, 227 Conn. 1, 15 , 629 A.2d 386 (1993); In re Zoarski, 227 Conn. 784, 796 , 632 A.2d 1114 (1993). 1994State v. Woodson, 227 Conn. 1, 15 , 629 A.2d 386 (1993); In re Zoarski, 227 Conn. 784, 796 , 632 A.2d 1114 (1993).	1	1994–1994
State v. Woodson green conn · 1993 2 sentences 1994State v. Woodson, 227 Conn. 1, 15 , 629 A.2d 386 (1993); In re Zoarski, 227 Conn. 784, 796 , 632 A.2d 1114 (1993). 1994State v. Woodson, 227 Conn. 1, 15 , 629 A.2d 386 (1993); In re Zoarski, 227 Conn. 784, 796 , 632 A.2d 1114 (1993).	1	1994–1994

Where else courts name it

CT 9 (1994–2014) MA 6 (2007–2025) FL 6 (1992–2017) PA 6 (1988–2023) MD 3 (1995–2015) ID 3 (1970–2018) IN 3 (2002–2003) TX 3 (2007–2014) NJ 2 (2021–2021) VT 2 (2014–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check