submission test in Connecticut

9 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1936–2013 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. AFSCME, COUNCIL 4, LOCAL 391green conn · 2011 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013KLewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54, 104 , 919 A.2d 1002 (2007); see also Marulli v. Wood Frame Construction Co., LLC, 124 Conn. App. 505, 510 , 5 A.3d 957 (2010) (trial court’s decision to vacate arbitration award under § 52-418 subject to de novo review because questions of law involved), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 912 , 13 A.3d 1102 (2011); State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 117 Conn. App. 54, 58 , 978 A.2d 131 (2009) (“if a party specifically contends that the arbitrator’s award does not conform to the submission in violation of § 52-418 [a] [4], we eng	1	1
Marulli v. WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC.green conn · 2011 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013KLewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54, 104 , 919 A.2d 1002 (2007); see also Marulli v. Wood Frame Construction Co., LLC, 124 Conn. App. 505, 510 , 5 A.3d 957 (2010) (trial court’s decision to vacate arbitration award under § 52-418 subject to de novo review because questions of law involved), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 912 , 13 A.3d 1102 (2011); State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 117 Conn. App. 54, 58 , 978 A.2d 131 (2009) (“if a party specifically contends that the arbitrator’s award does not conform to the submission in violation of § 52-418 [a] [4], we eng	1	1
State v. Connecticut State Employees Ass'n, SEIU Local 2001green connappct · 2009 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013KLewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54, 104 , 919 A.2d 1002 (2007); see also Marulli v. Wood Frame Construction Co., LLC, 124 Conn. App. 505, 510 , 5 A.3d 957 (2010) (trial court’s decision to vacate arbitration award under § 52-418 subject to de novo review because questions of law involved), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 912 , 13 A.3d 1102 (2011); State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 117 Conn. App. 54, 58 , 978 A.2d 131 (2009) (“if a party specifically contends that the arbitrator’s award does not conform to the submission in violation of § 52-418 [a] [4], we eng 2013KLewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54, 104 , 919 A.2d 1002 (2007); see also Marulli v. Wood Frame Construction Co., LLC, 124 Conn. App. 505, 510 , 5 A.3d 957 (2010) (trial court’s decision to vacate arbitration award under § 52-418 subject to de novo review because questions of law involved), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 912 , 13 A.3d 1102 (2011); State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 117 Conn. App. 54, 58 , 978 A.2d 131 (2009) (“if a party specifically contends that the arbitrator’s award does not conform to the submission in violation of § 52-418 [a] [4], we eng	1	1
Marulli v. Wood Frame Construction Co., LLCgreen connappct · 2010 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013KLewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54, 104 , 919 A.2d 1002 (2007); see also Marulli v. Wood Frame Construction Co., LLC, 124 Conn. App. 505, 510 , 5 A.3d 957 (2010) (trial court’s decision to vacate arbitration award under § 52-418 subject to de novo review because questions of law involved), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 912 , 13 A.3d 1102 (2011); State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 117 Conn. App. 54, 58 , 978 A.2d 131 (2009) (“if a party specifically contends that the arbitrator’s award does not conform to the submission in violation of § 52-418 [a] [4], we eng 2013KLewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54, 104 , 919 A.2d 1002 (2007); see also Marulli v. Wood Frame Construction Co., LLC, 124 Conn. App. 505, 510 , 5 A.3d 957 (2010) (trial court’s decision to vacate arbitration award under § 52-418 subject to de novo review because questions of law involved), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 912 , 13 A.3d 1102 (2011); State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 117 Conn. App. 54, 58 , 978 A.2d 131 (2009) (“if a party specifically contends that the arbitrator’s award does not conform to the submission in violation of § 52-418 [a] [4], we eng	1	1
Aloha Airlines, Inc. v. Director of Taxation of Hawaiigreen scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999See Welsh v. Wisconsin , 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 291 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), citing Scales v. State , 64 Wis.2d 485 , 494 , 219 N.W.2d 286 , 292 (1974) (where the Supreme Court found that a lawful arrest must be made prior to a submission to a test under Wisconsins implied consent law.) Assuming that the validity of the arrest would be at issue 3 , the arrest was valid under the exigent circumstances "hot pursuit" exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement.	1	1
Scales v. Stategreen wis · 1974 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See Welsh v. Wisconsin , 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 291 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), citing Scales v. State , 64 Wis.2d 485 , 494 , 219 N.W.2d 286 , 292 (1974) (where the Supreme Court found that a lawful arrest must be made prior to a submission to a test under Wisconsins implied consent law.) Assuming that the validity of the arrest would be at issue 3 , the arrest was valid under the exigent circumstances "hot pursuit" exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement. 1999See Welsh v. Wisconsin , 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 291 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), citing Scales v. State , 64 Wis.2d 485 , 494 , 219 N.W.2d 286 , 292 (1974) (where the Supreme Court found that a lawful arrest must be made prior to a submission to a test under Wisconsins implied consent law.) Assuming that the validity of the arrest would be at issue 3 , the arrest was valid under the exigent circumstances "hot pursuit" exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement.	1	1
Welsh v. Wisconsingreen scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See Welsh v. Wisconsin , 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 291 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), citing Scales v. State , 64 Wis.2d 485 , 494 , 219 N.W.2d 286 , 292 (1974) (where the Supreme Court found that a lawful arrest must be made prior to a submission to a test under Wisconsins implied consent law.) Assuming that the validity of the arrest would be at issue 3 , the arrest was valid under the exigent circumstances "hot pursuit" exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement. 1999See Welsh v. Wisconsin , 466 U.S. 740 , 104 S.Ct. 291 , 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), citing Scales v. State , 64 Wis.2d 485 , 494 , 219 N.W.2d 286 , 292 (1974) (where the Supreme Court found that a lawful arrest must be made prior to a submission to a test under Wisconsins implied consent law.) Assuming that the validity of the arrest would be at issue 3 , the arrest was valid under the exigent circumstances "hot pursuit" exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement.	1	1
State v. Cartergreen conn · 1983 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991While we have held that a defendant must produce evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in order to warrant the submission of an instruction on intoxication to the jury; see State v. Carter, 189 Conn. 611, 627-28 , 458 A.2d 369 (1983); we have never suggested that a defendant must establish a reasonable doubt as to his lack of specific intent in order to secure an acquittal. 1991While we have held that a defendant must produce evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in order to warrant the submission of an instruction on intoxication to the jury; see State v. Carter, 189 Conn. 611, 627-28 , 458 A.2d 369 (1983); we have never suggested that a defendant must establish a reasonable doubt as to his lack of specific intent in order to secure an acquittal.	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 (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Spring v. Nagle green conn · 1926 2 sentences 1938Altieri v. Peattie Motors, Inc., 121 Conn. 316, 320 , 185 Atl. 75 ; Spring v. Nagle, 104 Conn. 23, 28 , 131 Atl. 744 ; Barbieri v. Pandisco, 116 Conn. 48, 53 , 163 Atl. 469 . 1938Altieri v. Peattie Motors, Inc., 121 Conn. 316, 320 , 185 Atl. 75 ; Spring v. Nagle, 104 Conn. 23, 28 , 131 Atl. 744 ; Barbieri v. Pandisco, 116 Conn. 48, 53 , 163 Atl. 469 .	2	1936–1938
City of New Britain v. AFSCME, COUNCIL 4 green conn · 2012 2 sentences 2013KLewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54, 104 , 919 A.2d 1002 (2007); see also Marulli v. Wood Frame Construction Co., LLC, 124 Conn. App. 505, 510 , 5 A.3d 957 (2010) (trial court’s decision to vacate arbitration award under § 52-418 subject to de novo review because questions of law involved), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 912 , 13 A.3d 1102 (2011); State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 117 Conn. App. 54, 58 , 978 A.2d 131 (2009) (“if a party specifically contends that the arbitrator’s award does not conform to the submission in violation of § 52-418 [a] [4], we eng 2013KLewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54, 104 , 919 A.2d 1002 (2007); see also Marulli v. Wood Frame Construction Co., LLC, 124 Conn. App. 505, 510 , 5 A.3d 957 (2010) (trial court’s decision to vacate arbitration award under § 52-418 subject to de novo review because questions of law involved), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 912 , 13 A.3d 1102 (2011); State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 117 Conn. App. 54, 58 , 978 A.2d 131 (2009) (“if a party specifically contends that the arbitrator’s award does not conform to the submission in violation of § 52-418 [a] [4], we eng	1	2013–2013
C. R. Klewin Northeast, LLC v. City of Bridgeport green conn · 2007 2 sentences 2013KLewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54, 104 , 919 A.2d 1002 (2007); see also Marulli v. Wood Frame Construction Co., LLC, 124 Conn. App. 505, 510 , 5 A.3d 957 (2010) (trial court’s decision to vacate arbitration award under § 52-418 subject to de novo review because questions of law involved), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 912 , 13 A.3d 1102 (2011); State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 117 Conn. App. 54, 58 , 978 A.2d 131 (2009) (“if a party specifically contends that the arbitrator’s award does not conform to the submission in violation of § 52-418 [a] [4], we eng 2013KLewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54, 104 , 919 A.2d 1002 (2007); see also Marulli v. Wood Frame Construction Co., LLC, 124 Conn. App. 505, 510 , 5 A.3d 957 (2010) (trial court’s decision to vacate arbitration award under § 52-418 subject to de novo review because questions of law involved), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 912 , 13 A.3d 1102 (2011); State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 117 Conn. App. 54, 58 , 978 A.2d 131 (2009) (“if a party specifically contends that the arbitrator’s award does not conform to the submission in violation of § 52-418 [a] [4], we eng	1	2013–2013
Office of Labor Relations v. New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199 green conn · 2008 2 sentences 2009Office of Labor Relations v. New England 59 Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, AFL-CIO, 288 Conn. 223, 229-30 , 951 A.2d 1249 (2008). “[T]hat standard can best be understood when viewed in the context of what the court is permitted to consider when making this determination and the exact nature of the inquiiy presented. 2009Office of Labor Relations v. New England 59 Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, AFL-CIO, 288 Conn. 223, 229-30 , 951 A.2d 1249 (2008). “[T]hat standard can best be understood when viewed in the context of what the court is permitted to consider when making this determination and the exact nature of the inquiiy presented.	1	2009–2009
Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 1999United States v. Santana , 427 U.S. 38 , 42-43, 96 S.Ct. 2406 , 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976); Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden , 387 U.S. 294 , 298-99 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). 1999United States v. Santana , 427 U.S. 38 , 42-43, 96 S.Ct. 2406 , 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976); Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden , 387 U.S. 294 , 298-99 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967).	1	1999–1999
United States v. Santana green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 1999United States v. Santana , 427 U.S. 38 , 42-43, 96 S.Ct. 2406 , 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976); Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden , 387 U.S. 294 , 298-99 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). 1999United States v. Santana , 427 U.S. 38 , 42-43, 96 S.Ct. 2406 , 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976); Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden , 387 U.S. 294 , 298-99 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967).	1	1999–1999
Town of East Hartford v. East Hartford Municipal Employees Union, Inc. green conn · 1988 1 sentence 1995East Hartford v. East Hartford Municipal Employees Union, Inc., 206 Conn. 643 , CT Page 7272 653-654 (1988) Whether or not an award conforms to the submission is an inquiry which asks simply whether or not the arbitrator has answered the questions lawfully put to him.	1	1995–1995
Robinson v. Southern New England Telephone Co. green connappct · 1994 1 sentence 1995CT Page 1646 In Robinson v. SNET , 33 Conn. App. 600 , 602 (1994) the Appellate court held that the submission of a claim to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement does not preclude a statutory cause of action in this court; see also Cassotto v. Winchester Board of Education , 13 Conn. L.	1	1995–1995
International Union v. Fafnir Bearing Co. green conn · 1964 1 sentence 1993The award, and not the findings and conclusions of facts, controls; Board of Education v. Bridgeport Education Association, 173 Conn. 287 , 292 (1977). ". . .and ordinarily the memorandum of an arbitrator is irrelevant." International Union v. Fafnir Bearing Co., 151 Conn. 650 , 654 (1964).	1	1993–1993
Board of Education v. Bridgeport Education Assn. green conn · 1977 1 sentence 1993The award, and not the findings and conclusions of facts, controls; Board of Education v. Bridgeport Education Association, 173 Conn. 287 , 292 (1977). ". . .and ordinarily the memorandum of an arbitrator is irrelevant." International Union v. Fafnir Bearing Co., 151 Conn. 650 , 654 (1964).	1	1993–1993
Barbieri v. Pandiscio neutral conn · 1932 2 sentences 1938Altieri v. Peattie Motors, Inc., 121 Conn. 316, 320 , 185 Atl. 75 ; Spring v. Nagle, 104 Conn. 23, 28 , 131 Atl. 744 ; Barbieri v. Pandisco, 116 Conn. 48, 53 , 163 Atl. 469 . 1938Altieri v. Peattie Motors, Inc., 121 Conn. 316, 320 , 185 Atl. 75 ; Spring v. Nagle, 104 Conn. 23, 28 , 131 Atl. 744 ; Barbieri v. Pandisco, 116 Conn. 48, 53 , 163 Atl. 469 .	1	1938–1938
Altieri v. Peattie Motors, Inc. green conn · 1936 2 sentences 1938Altieri v. Peattie Motors, Inc., 121 Conn. 316, 320 , 185 Atl. 75 ; Spring v. Nagle, 104 Conn. 23, 28 , 131 Atl. 744 ; Barbieri v. Pandisco, 116 Conn. 48, 53 , 163 Atl. 469 . 1938Altieri v. Peattie Motors, Inc., 121 Conn. 316, 320 , 185 Atl. 75 ; Spring v. Nagle, 104 Conn. 23, 28 , 131 Atl. 744 ; Barbieri v. Pandisco, 116 Conn. 48, 53 , 163 Atl. 469 .	1	1938–1938

Where else courts name it

MO 207 (1895–2025) TX 118 (1931–2025) NY 41 (1862–2025) TN 28 (1991–2026) CO 25 (1920–2017) IA 18 (1920–2019) NC 16 (1915–2020) CA 15 (1967–2025) IL 14 (1892–2025) NM 13 (1935–2026) OK 10 (1921–1995) CT 9 (1936–2013) PA 9 (1921–2023) WA 8 (1912–2016) AZ 8 (1970–2012) AR 8 (1999–2017) NJ 8 (1828–2026) MS 7 (1992–2005) MN 7 (1936–2008) OH 6 (1958–2012) ME 6 (1900–2021) IN 5 (1869–1999) MA 5 (1853–2016) FL 4 (1977–2017) WI 3 (1977–1993) LA 3 (1987–2014) AL 3 (1943–2010) MI 3 (1974–2024) KS 3 (1961–1992) HI 2 (1942–2000) NE 2 (1954–1958) VT 2 (2013–2025) ND 2 (1991–2009) WV 2 (1988–1992) NH 2 (1842–1986) MD 2 (1997–2007) WY 2 (1992–2000) SD 2 (1982–1989) GA 2 (1922–1984)

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