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.
7 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fox v. First Bankgreen1 sentence2017See Pavlinko v. Yale-New Haven Hospital , supra, 192 Conn. at 144 -45 , 470 A.2d 246 (dismissal was only viable sanction where plaintiff administrator of estate removed hospital records of his decedent and refused to answer questions about integrity and reliability of those records in medical malpractice action); see also Fox v. First Bank , supra, at 40 , 501 A.2d 747 (court afforded plaintiff several chances to comply with payment orders before dismissing her case); cf. D'Ascanio v. Toyota Industries Corp. , supra, 309 Conn. at 683-84 , 72 A.3d 1019 (after dishonest conduct of plaintiff's ex | 1 | 1 |
Pavlinko v. Yale-New Haven Hospitalgreen2 sentences2017See Pavlinko v. Yale-New Haven Hospital , supra, 192 Conn. at 144 -45 , 470 A.2d 246 (dismissal was only viable sanction where plaintiff administrator of estate removed hospital records of his decedent and refused to answer questions about integrity and reliability of those records in medical malpractice action); see also Fox v. First Bank , supra, at 40 , 501 A.2d 747 (court afforded plaintiff several chances to comply with payment orders before dismissing her case); cf. D'Ascanio v. Toyota Industries Corp. , supra, 309 Conn. at 683-84 , 72 A.3d 1019 (after dishonest conduct of plaintiff's ex 2017See Pavlinko v. Yale-New Haven Hospital , supra, 192 Conn. at 144 -45 , 470 A.2d 246 (dismissal was only viable sanction where plaintiff administrator of estate removed hospital records of his decedent and refused to answer questions about integrity and reliability of those records in medical malpractice action); see also Fox v. First Bank , supra, at 40 , 501 A.2d 747 (court afforded plaintiff several chances to comply with payment orders before dismissing her case); cf. D'Ascanio v. Toyota Industries Corp. , supra, 309 Conn. at 683-84 , 72 A.3d 1019 (after dishonest conduct of plaintiff's ex | 1 | 1 |
Tighe v. Town of Berlingreen2 sentences2002See Tighe v. Berlin, 259 Conn. 83, 87 , 788 A.2d 40 (2002) (“ ‘party seeking injunctive relief has the burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law’ ”). 2002See Tighe v. Berlin, 259 Conn. 83, 87 , 788 A.2d 40 (2002) (“ ‘party seeking injunctive relief has the burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law’ ”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. Gilmore
green
2 sentences2009“A trial court may entertain a motion in limine made by either party regarding the admission or exclusion of anticipated evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, 289 Conn. 88, 127 , 956 A.2d 1145 (2008); see also Practice Book § 42-15. “[T]he motion in limine . . . has generally been used in Connecticut courts to invoke a trial judge’s inherent discretionary powers to control proceedings, exclude evidence, and prevent occurrences that might unnecessarily prejudice the right of any party to a fair trial. . . . 2009“A trial court may entertain a motion in limine made by either party regarding the admission or exclusion of anticipated evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, 289 Conn. 88, 127 , 956 A.2d 1145 (2008); see also Practice Book § 42-15. “[T]he motion in limine . . . has generally been used in Connecticut courts to invoke a trial judge’s inherent discretionary powers to control proceedings, exclude evidence, and prevent occurrences that might unnecessarily prejudice the right of any party to a fair trial. . . . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Debarros
green
2 sentences2001The defendant claims that this matter is “totally distinguishable from both Austin and Prioleau” and is more analogous to State v. DeBarros, 58 Conn. App. 673 , 755 A.2d 303 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 931 , 761 A.2d 756 (2000). 2001The defendant claims that this matter is “totally distinguishable from both Austin and Prioleau” and is more analogous to State v. DeBarros, 58 Conn. App. 673 , 755 A.2d 303 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 931 , 761 A.2d 756 (2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Debarros
green
2 sentences2001The defendant claims that this matter is “totally distinguishable from both Austin and Prioleau” and is more analogous to State v. DeBarros, 58 Conn. App. 673 , 755 A.2d 303 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 931 , 761 A.2d 756 (2000). 2001The defendant claims that this matter is “totally distinguishable from both Austin and Prioleau” and is more analogous to State v. DeBarros, 58 Conn. App. 673 , 755 A.2d 303 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 931 , 761 A.2d 756 (2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences1998This issue is controlled by State v. Johnson, 44 Conn. App. 125 , 688 A.2d 867 (1997). 1998This issue is controlled by State v. Johnson, 44 Conn. App. 125 , 688 A.2d 867 (1997). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Lawrence v. Kozlowski
green
1 sentence1993This evidence and these findings were sufficient to meet the substantial evidence standard set forth in Lawrence v. Kozlowski, supra. III The plaintiff also contends that the DMV ought to have stayed her license suspension until after the outcome of the hearing. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Murphy
green
2 sentences1982The court rejected that claim stating that "[a] reading of the instruction in its entirety reveals that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the element of the crime and that no prejudicial error occurred." Id., 160 . [5] In its supplemental charge on self-defense, the court repeated this instruction verbatim. 1982The court rejected that claim stating that “[a] reading of the instruction in its entirety reveals that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the element of the crime and that no prejudicial error occurred.” Id., 160 . la its supplemental charge on self-defense, the court repeated this instruction verbatim. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.