9 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sellers v. Sellers Garage, Inc.green1 sentence2021See Sellers v. Sellers Garage, Inc., 80 Conn. App. 15, 19 , 832 A.2d 679 , cert. denied, 267 Conn. 904 , 838 A.2d 210 (2003); see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-301-4. ‘‘A party seeking to challenge a finding of the commissioner as incorrect or incomplete must first do so by filing a motion to correct the challenged findings.’’ Melendez v. Fresh Start General Remodeling & Contracting, LLC, 180 Conn. App. 355, 367 , 183 A.3d 670 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chancegreen1 sentence2021See Sellers v. Sellers Garage, Inc., 80 Conn. App. 15, 19 , 832 A.2d 679 , cert. denied, 267 Conn. 904 , 838 A.2d 210 (2003); see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-301-4. ‘‘A party seeking to challenge a finding of the commissioner as incorrect or incomplete must first do so by filing a motion to correct the challenged findings.’’ Melendez v. Fresh Start General Remodeling & Contracting, LLC, 180 Conn. App. 355, 367 , 183 A.3d 670 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
Sellers v. Sellers Garage, Inc.green2 sentences2021See Sellers v. Sellers Garage, Inc., 80 Conn. App. 15, 19 , 832 A.2d 679 , cert. denied, 267 Conn. 904 , 838 A.2d 210 (2003); see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-301-4. ‘‘A party seeking to challenge a finding of the commissioner as incorrect or incomplete must first do so by filing a motion to correct the challenged findings.’’ Melendez v. Fresh Start General Remodeling & Contracting, LLC, 180 Conn. App. 355, 367 , 183 A.3d 670 (2018). 2021See Sellers v. Sellers Garage, Inc., 80 Conn. App. 15, 19 , 832 A.2d 679 , cert. denied, 267 Conn. 904 , 838 A.2d 210 (2003); see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-301-4. ‘‘A party seeking to challenge a finding of the commissioner as incorrect or incomplete must first do so by filing a motion to correct the challenged findings.’’ Melendez v. Fresh Start General Remodeling & Contracting, LLC, 180 Conn. App. 355, 367 , 183 A.3d 670 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
Melendez v. Fresh Start General Remodeling & Contracting, LLCgreen2 sentences2021See Sellers v. Sellers Garage, Inc., 80 Conn. App. 15, 19 , 832 A.2d 679 , cert. denied, 267 Conn. 904 , 838 A.2d 210 (2003); see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-301-4. ‘‘A party seeking to challenge a finding of the commissioner as incorrect or incomplete must first do so by filing a motion to correct the challenged findings.’’ Melendez v. Fresh Start General Remodeling & Contracting, LLC, 180 Conn. App. 355, 367 , 183 A.3d 670 (2018). 2021See Sellers v. Sellers Garage, Inc., 80 Conn. App. 15, 19 , 832 A.2d 679 , cert. denied, 267 Conn. 904 , 838 A.2d 210 (2003); see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-301-4. ‘‘A party seeking to challenge a finding of the commissioner as incorrect or incomplete must first do so by filing a motion to correct the challenged findings.’’ Melendez v. Fresh Start General Remodeling & Contracting, LLC, 180 Conn. App. 355, 367 , 183 A.3d 670 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2009In the event that the review division determines that a sentence modification is appropriate, General Statutes § 51-196 (d) provides that “the Superior Court shall resentence the defendant or make any other disposition of the case ordered by the review division.” A party seeking to challenge the modified sentence cannot appeal the review division’s decision directly but may seek appellate review of the judgment of the court imposing the new sentence by way of a direct appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 54-95 (a) or General Statutes § 54-96. 9 See State v. Nardini, supra, 187 Conn. 117 (stat 2009In the event that the review division determines that a sentence modification is appropriate, General Statutes § 51-196 (d) provides that “the Superior Court shall resentence the defendant or make any other disposition of the case ordered by the review division.” A party seeking to challenge the modified sentence cannot appeal the review division’s decision directly but may seek appellate review of the judgment of the court imposing the new sentence by way of a direct appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 54-95 (a) or General Statutes § 54-96. 9 See State v. Nardini, supra, 187 Conn. 117 (stat | 1 | 1 |
Conley v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., Conley v. Board of Education, 143 Conn. 488, 497-98 , 123 A.2d 747 (1956). 15 Having resolved the principal issue raised by this appeal, together with its collateral burden of proof issue, we now address the remaining claims raised by the city, which allege various abuses of discretion by the state board. 1994See, e.g., Conley v. Board of Education, 143 Conn. 488, 497-98 , 123 A.2d 747 (1956). 15 Having resolved the principal issue raised by this appeal, together with its collateral burden of proof issue, we now address the remaining claims raised by the city, which allege various abuses of discretion by the state board. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lovejoy v. Water Resources Commission
neutral
2 sentences2002Red Hill Coalition, Inc. v. Conservation Commission , 212 Conn. 710 , 718 (1989); Lovejoy v. Water Resources Commission , 165 Conn. 224 , 228-29 (1973). 2002Lovejoy v. Water Resources Commission , 165 Conn. 224 , 228-29 (1973). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Whistnant
green
2 sentences2016Specifically, the state contends that the defendant's claim implicates his common-law right to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense. 8 According to the state, to be entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense, the party seeking the instruction must satisfy the four-pronged test established in State v. Whistnant , 179 Conn. 576 , 588, 427 A.2d 414 (1980), 9 and because the defendant did not satisfy these four prongs, he could not argue the elements of manslaughter, which is a lesser included offense of murder, to the jury in his closing argument. 2016Specifically, the state contends that the defendant's claim implicates his common-law right to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense. 8 According to the state, to be entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense, the party seeking the instruction must satisfy the four-pronged test established in State v. Whistnant , 179 Conn. 576 , 588, 427 A.2d 414 (1980), 9 and because the defendant did not satisfy these four prongs, he could not argue the elements of manslaughter, which is a lesser included offense of murder, to the jury in his closing argument. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Heyward
green
2 sentences2009In the event that the review division determines that a sentence modification is appropriate, General Statutes § 51-196 (d) provides that “the Superior Court shall resentence the defendant or make any other disposition of the case ordered by the review division.” A party seeking to challenge the modified sentence cannot appeal the review division’s decision directly but may seek appellate review of the judgment of the court imposing the new sentence by way of a direct appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 54-95 (a) or General Statutes § 54-96. 9 See State v. Nardini, supra, 187 Conn. 117 (stat 2009In the event that the review division determines that a sentence modification is appropriate, General Statutes § 51-196 (d) provides that “the Superior Court shall resentence the defendant or make any other disposition of the case ordered by the review division.” A party seeking to challenge the modified sentence cannot appeal the review division’s decision directly but may seek appellate review of the judgment of the court imposing the new sentence by way of a direct appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 54-95 (a) or General Statutes § 54-96. 9 See State v. Nardini, supra, 187 Conn. 117 (stat | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Red Hill Coalition, Inc. v. Conservation Commission
green
1 sentence2002Red Hill Coalition, Inc. v. Conservation Commission , 212 Conn. 710 , 718 (1989); Lovejoy v. Water Resources Commission , 165 Conn. 224 , 228-29 (1973). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Babcock v. Bridgeport Hospital
green
2 sentences2000See Practice Book § 13-5 ; Babcock v. Bridgeport Hospital, 251 Conn. 790 , 848-49 , 742 A.2d 322 (1999). 2000See Practice Book § 13-5 ; Babcock v. Bridgeport Hospital, 251 Conn. 790 , 848-49 , 742 A.2d 322 (1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Melmer v. City of Meriden
green
1 sentence1997RPTR. 1 , 8 CSCR 486 ). "`The party seeking to bar a deposition must make a threshold showing that there is "good cause" that the protective order issue.'" Lohr v. North American Van Lines , supra , Superior Court, Docket No. 324223, 19 CONN. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Sperling v. Donovan
green
1 sentence1991The Associated Construction Co., Inc. v. Milford, 4 CSCR 130 , 131 (December 28, 1988, Kulawiz, J.) citing Cooper v. Welch Foods, Inc., 104 F.R.D. 4 , 6 (W.D.N.Y. 1984). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.