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 2 courts 2001–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Milner v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen2 sentences2007Because the respondent’s return did not respond to count three, however, the court improperly found that the petitioner was procedurally defaulted as to that count. “[T]he plain language of Practice Book § 23-30 (b) requires the state to plead procedural default in its return or it will relinquish the right to assert the defense *655 thereafter. . . . [I]n Connecticut, although the petitioner has the burden of proving cause and prejudice . . . that burden does not arise until after the respondent raises the claim of procedural default in its return.” (Citations omitted.) Milner v. Commissioner 2007Because the respondent’s return did not respond to count three, however, the court improperly found that the petitioner was procedurally defaulted as to that count. “[T]he plain language of Practice Book § 23-30 (b) requires the state to plead procedural default in its return or it will relinquish the right to assert the defense *655 thereafter. . . . [I]n Connecticut, although the petitioner has the burden of proving cause and prejudice . . . that burden does not arise until after the respondent raises the claim of procedural default in its return.” (Citations omitted.) Milner v. Commissioner | 1 | 3 |
In re Christina M.green2 sentences2026See, e.g., In re Christina M., 90 Conn. App. 565, 584 , 877 A.2d 941 (2005) (claims not raised in principal brief may not be raised in reply brief), aff’d, 280 Conn. 474 , 908 A.2d 1073 (2006). 13 To the extent the respondent challenges the court’s factual findings by citing evidence in the record that purportedly contradicts the court’s findings, “[w]e iterate that [w]e give great deference to the findings of the trial court because of its function to weigh and interpret the evidence before it and to pass upon the credibility of witnesses . . . . 2026See, e.g., In re Christina M., 90 Conn. App. 565, 584 , 877 A.2d 941 (2005) (claims not raised in principal brief may not be raised in reply brief), aff’d, 280 Conn. 474 , 908 A.2d 1073 (2006). 13 To the extent the respondent challenges the court’s factual findings by citing evidence in the record that purportedly contradicts the court’s findings, “[w]e iterate that [w]e give great deference to the findings of the trial court because of its function to weigh and interpret the evidence before it and to pass upon the credibility of witnesses . . . . | 1 | 1 |
In re Christina M.green2 sentences2026See, e.g., In re Christina M., 90 Conn. App. 565, 584 , 877 A.2d 941 (2005) (claims not raised in principal brief may not be raised in reply brief), aff’d, 280 Conn. 474 , 908 A.2d 1073 (2006). 13 To the extent the respondent challenges the court’s factual findings by citing evidence in the record that purportedly contradicts the court’s findings, “[w]e iterate that [w]e give great deference to the findings of the trial court because of its function to weigh and interpret the evidence before it and to pass upon the credibility of witnesses . . . . 2026See, e.g., In re Christina M., 90 Conn. App. 565, 584 , 877 A.2d 941 (2005) (claims not raised in principal brief may not be raised in reply brief), aff’d, 280 Conn. 474 , 908 A.2d 1073 (2006). 13 To the extent the respondent challenges the court’s factual findings by citing evidence in the record that purportedly contradicts the court’s findings, “[w]e iterate that [w]e give great deference to the findings of the trial court because of its function to weigh and interpret the evidence before it and to pass upon the credibility of witnesses . . . . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2022Only after the respondent raises the defense of procedural default in accordance with [Prac- tice Book] § 23-30 (b) does the burden shift to the peti- tioner to allege and prove that the default is excused.’’ (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Crawford v. Commissioner of Correc- tion, 294 Conn. 165 , 175–76, 982 A.2d 620 (2009). ‘‘[T]he existence of cause for a procedural default must ordi- narily turn on whether the [petitioner] can show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with the [s]tate’s procedural ru 2022Only after the respondent raises the defense of procedural default in accordance with [Prac- tice Book] § 23-30 (b) does the burden shift to the peti- tioner to allege and prove that the default is excused.’’ (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Crawford v. Commissioner of Correc- tion, 294 Conn. 165 , 175–76, 982 A.2d 620 (2009). ‘‘[T]he existence of cause for a procedural default must ordi- narily turn on whether the [petitioner] can show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with the [s]tate’s procedural ru | 5 | 2015–2022 |
Ankerman v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2014Because the respondent did not plead procedural default as an affirmative defense . . . the court could not find that the peti- tioner was procedurally defaulted . . . .’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ankerman v. Commissioner of Correction, 104 Conn. App. 649 , 654–55, 935 A.2d 208 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 916 , 943 A.2d 474 (2008); see Milner v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 726, 733 , 779 A.2d 156 (2001) (supporting and applying position of federal habeas commentators that ‘‘petitioners generally need not raise waiver and procedural default matter 2014Because the respondent did not plead procedural default as an affirmative defense . . . the court could not find that the peti- tioner was procedurally defaulted . . . .’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ankerman v. Commissioner of Correction, 104 Conn. App. 649 , 654–55, 935 A.2d 208 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 916 , 943 A.2d 474 (2008); see Milner v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 726, 733 , 779 A.2d 156 (2001) (supporting and applying position of federal habeas commentators that ‘‘petitioners generally need not raise waiver and procedural default matter | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ankerman v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2014Because the respondent did not plead procedural default as an affirmative defense . . . the court could not find that the peti- tioner was procedurally defaulted . . . .’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ankerman v. Commissioner of Correction, 104 Conn. App. 649 , 654–55, 935 A.2d 208 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 916 , 943 A.2d 474 (2008); see Milner v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 726, 733 , 779 A.2d 156 (2001) (supporting and applying position of federal habeas commentators that ‘‘petitioners generally need not raise waiver and procedural default matter 2014Because the respondent did not plead procedural default as an affirmative defense . . . the court could not find that the peti- tioner was procedurally defaulted . . . .’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ankerman v. Commissioner of Correction, 104 Conn. App. 649 , 654–55, 935 A.2d 208 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 916 , 943 A.2d 474 (2008); see Milner v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 726, 733 , 779 A.2d 156 (2001) (supporting and applying position of federal habeas commentators that ‘‘petitioners generally need not raise waiver and procedural default matter | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.