reviewability claim in Connecticut

66 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 9 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 (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Cohensgreen conn · 2001 · cited in 5 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2001–2009 2 sentences 2009"The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim." State v. Cohens, 62 Conn.App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 751 363, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001). 2009*“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001).	2	5
State v. Beltongreen conn · 2001 · cited in 5 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2001–2009 2 sentences 2009"The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim." State v. Cohens, 62 Conn.App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 751 363, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001). 2009*“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001).	2	5
State v. Cohensgreen connappct · 2001 · cited in 5 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2001–2009 2 sentences 2009“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001). 2009“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001).	2	5
In re Vada V.green conn · 2022 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 2 sentences 2026We conclude that the defendant’s claim is reviewable under the first two prongs of Golding because the record is adequate for review and the claim is of constitutional magnitude.8 See, e.g., State v. Schovanec, 326 Conn. 310 , 324–25, 163 A.3d 581 (2017) (reviewing unpreserved double jeopardy claim under Golding); see also, e.g., In re Vada V., 343 Conn. 730 , 741, 275 A.3d 1172 (2022) (“[t]he first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2026“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Vada V., 343 Conn. 730 , 741, 275 A.3d 1172 (2022).	1	2
State v. Mejiagreen conn · 1995 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025	1	1
State v. Winotgreen conn · 2010 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025	1	1
State v. Biggsgreen connappct · 2017 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018	1	1
Presidential Vill., LLC v. Perkinsgreen conn · 2017 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018	1	1
State v. Biggsgreen conn · 2017 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018	1	1
Wood v. Georgiagreen scotus · 1981 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017	1	1
State v. Lewisgreen conn · 2012 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012	1	1
State v. MICHAEL A.green conn · 2010 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	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 (58)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Britton green conn · 2007 2 sentences 2019"The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Britton , 283 Conn. 598 , 615, 929 A.2d 312 (2007). 2019"The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Britton , 283 Conn. 598 , 615, 929 A.2d 312 (2007).	7	2017–2019
State v. Beltran green conn · 1998 2 sentences 2001“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” State v. Beltran, 246 Conn. 268, 275 , 717 A.2d 168 (1998). 2001“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” State v. Beltran, 246 Conn. 268, 275 , 717 A.2d 168 (1998).	6	1999–2001
State v. Golding green conn · 1989 2 sentences 2002I REVIEWABILITY The defendant did not properly preserve his claim of prosecutorial misconduct at trial 5 and therefore requests review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 2002I REVIEWABILITY The defendant did not properly preserve his claim of prosecutorial misconduct at trial 5 and therefore requests review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989).	5	1992–2016
State v. Brown green conn · 2000 2 sentences 2014“The first two prongs of Golding address the reviewability of the claim, and the last two involve the merits of the claim.” State v. Brown, 56 Conn. App. 26, 31 , 741 A.2d 321 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 927 , 746 A.2d 790 (2000). 2012“The first two prongs of Golding address the reviewability of the claim, and the last two involve the merits of the claim.” State v. Brown, 56 Conn. App. 26, 31 , 741 A.2d 321 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 927 , 746 A.2d 790 (2000).	5	2001–2014
State v. Gregory green conn · 2000 2 sentences 2014“The first two prongs of Golding address the reviewability of the claim, and the last two involve the merits of the claim.” State v. Brown, 56 Conn. App. 26, 31 , 741 A.2d 321 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 927 , 746 A.2d 790 (2000). 2012“The first two prongs of Golding address the reviewability of the claim, and the last two involve the merits of the claim.” State v. Brown, 56 Conn. App. 26, 31 , 741 A.2d 321 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 927 , 746 A.2d 790 (2000).	5	2001–2014
State v. Brown green connappct · 1999 2 sentences 2014“The first two prongs of Golding address the reviewability of the claim, and the last two involve the merits of the claim.” State v. Brown, 56 Conn. App. 26, 31 , 741 A.2d 321 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 927 , 746 A.2d 790 (2000). 2014“The first two prongs of Golding address the reviewability of the claim, and the last two involve the merits of the claim.” State v. Brown, 56 Conn. App. 26, 31 , 741 A.2d 321 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 927 , 746 A.2d 790 (2000).	5	2001–2014
State v. Andresen green conn · 2001 2 sentences 2007“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andresen, 256 Conn. 313, 325 , 773 A.2d 328 (2001). 2007“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andresen, 256 Conn. 313, 325 , 773 A.2d 328 (2001).	4	2001–2007
State v. Kitchens green conn · 2011 2 sentences 2026“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos G., 354 Conn. 21, 26 , 349 A.3d 1 (2026). 4 The state does not argue that the defendant has implicitly waived any challenge to the trial court’s instructions pursuant to State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). 2026“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos G., 354 Conn. 21, 26 , 349 A.3d 1 (2026). 4 The state does not argue that the defendant has implicitly waived any challenge to the trial court’s instructions pursuant to State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011).	3	2024–2026
State v. Daniels green connappct · 2024 2 sentences 2025The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Daniels, 228 Conn. App. 321 , 342, 324 A.3d 820 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 926 , 326 A.3d 248 (2024). 2025The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Daniels, 228 Conn. App. 321, 342 , 324 A.3d 820 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 926 , 326 A.3d 248 (2024). ‘‘In the absence of any one of these condi- tions, the defendant’s claim will fail.	3	2025–2025
Dubinsky v. Reich green conn · 2019 2 sentences 2020In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defen- dant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239–40. ‘‘The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jerrell R., 187 Conn. App. 537, 543 , 202 A.3d 1044 , cert. denied, 331 Conn. 918 , 204 A.3d 1160 (2019). 2019In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239–40. ‘‘The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jerrell R., 187 Conn. App. 537, 543 , 202 A.3d 1044 , cert. denied, 331 Conn. 918 , 204 A.3d 1160 (2019).	3	2019–2020
State v. Jerrell R. green conn · 2019 2 sentences 2020In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defen- dant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239–40. ‘‘The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jerrell R., 187 Conn. App. 537, 543 , 202 A.3d 1044 , cert. denied, 331 Conn. 918 , 204 A.3d 1160 (2019). 2019In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239–40. ‘‘The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jerrell R., 187 Conn. App. 537, 543 , 202 A.3d 1044 , cert. denied, 331 Conn. 918 , 204 A.3d 1160 (2019).	3	2019–2020
State v. Jerrell R. green connappct · 2019 2 sentences 2020In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defen- dant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239–40. ‘‘The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jerrell R., 187 Conn. App. 537, 543 , 202 A.3d 1044 , cert. denied, 331 Conn. 918 , 204 A.3d 1160 (2019). 2020In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defen- dant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239–40. ‘‘The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jerrell R., 187 Conn. App. 537, 543 , 202 A.3d 1044 , cert. denied, 331 Conn. 918 , 204 A.3d 1160 (2019).	3	2019–2020
State v. Hafford green conn · 2000 2 sentences 2003State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 305 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L. 2003State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 305 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L.	3	2001–2003
Statewide Grievance Committee v. Brown green conn · 2002 2 sentences 2003The appellate tribunal is free ... to respond to the defendant’s claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Solman, 67 Conn. App. 235, 238 , 786 A.2d 1184 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 917 , 791 A.2d 568 (2002). 2002The appellate tribunal is free ... to respond to the defendant’s claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Solman, 67 Conn. App. 235, 238 , 786 A.2d 1184 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 917 , 791 A.2d 568 (2002).	3	2002–2003
State v. Solman green conn · 2002 2 sentences 2003The appellate tribunal is free ... to respond to the defendant’s claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Solman, 67 Conn. App. 235, 238 , 786 A.2d 1184 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 917 , 791 A.2d 568 (2002). 2002The appellate tribunal is free ... to respond to the defendant’s claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Solman, 67 Conn. App. 235, 238 , 786 A.2d 1184 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 917 , 791 A.2d 568 (2002).	3	2002–2003
State v. Solman green connappct · 2001 2 sentences 2003The appellate tribunal is free ... to respond to the defendant’s claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Solman, 67 Conn. App. 235, 238 , 786 A.2d 1184 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 917 , 791 A.2d 568 (2002). 2003The appellate tribunal is free ... to respond to the defendant’s claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Solman, 67 Conn. App. 235, 238 , 786 A.2d 1184 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 917 , 791 A.2d 568 (2002).	3	2002–2003
Johnson v. McCaughtry green scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2003State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 305 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L. 2001State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 305 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L.	3	2001–2003
Gonzales-Lemus v. California green scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2003State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 305 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L. 2001State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 305 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L.	3	2001–2003
Escarino-Carrillo v. United States green scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2003State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 305 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L. 2001State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 305 , 746 A.2d 150 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855 , 121 S. Ct. 136 , 148 L.	3	2001–2003
State v. Johnson green conn · 2001 2 sentences 2002“The first two prongs of Golding address the reviewability of the claim, and the last two involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Silva, 65 Conn. App. 234, 240 , 783 A.2d 7 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 929, 240 , 783 A.2d 1031 (2001). 2002The first two prongs of Golding address the reviewability of the claim, and the last two involve the merits of the claim.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.	3	2002–2002
State v. Silva green conn · 2001 2 sentences 2002“The first two prongs of Golding address the reviewability of the claim, and the last two involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Silva, 65 Conn. App. 234, 240 , 783 A.2d 7 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 929, 240 , 783 A.2d 1031 (2001). 2002“The first two prongs of Golding address the reviewability of the claim, and the last two involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Silva, 65 Conn. App. 234, 240 , 783 A.2d 7 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 929 , 783 A.2d 1031 (2001).	2	2002–2002
State v. Silva green connappct · 2001 2 sentences 2002“The first two prongs of Golding address the reviewability of the claim, and the last two involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Silva, 65 Conn. App. 234, 240 , 783 A.2d 7 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 929, 240 , 783 A.2d 1031 (2001). 2002“The first two prongs of Golding address the reviewability of the claim, and the last two involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Silva, 65 Conn. App. 234, 240 , 783 A.2d 7 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 929, 240 , 783 A.2d 1031 (2001).	2	2002–2002
State v. Henry green conn · 2000 2 sentences 2001“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henry, 253 Conn. 354, 359 , 752 A.2d 40 (2000). 2001“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Henry, 253 Conn. 354, 359 , 752 A.2d 40 (2000).	2	2001–2001
State v. Askew green connappct · 1999 2 sentences 2000State v. Beltran, 246 Conn. 268, 275 , 717 A.2d 168 (1998); State v. Askew, 55 Conn. App. 34, 38 , 739 A.2d 274 , cert. denied, 251 Conn. 918 , 740 A.2d 866 (1999). 2000State v. Beltran, 246 Conn. 268, 275 , 717 A.2d 168 (1998); State v. Askew, 55 Conn. App. 34, 38 , 739 A.2d 274 , cert. denied, 251 Conn. 918 , 740 A.2d 866 (1999).	2	1999–2000
State v. Schovanec green conn · 2017 2 sentences 2026We conclude that the defendant’s claim is reviewable under the first two prongs of Golding because the record is adequate for review and the claim is of constitutional magnitude.8 See, e.g., State v. Schovanec, 326 Conn. 310 , 324–25, 163 A.3d 581 (2017) (reviewing unpreserved double jeopardy claim under Golding); see also, e.g., In re Vada V., 343 Conn. 730 , 741, 275 A.3d 1172 (2022) (“[t]he first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2026We conclude that the defendant’s claim is reviewable under the first two prongs of Golding because the record is adequate for review and the claim is of constitutional magnitude.8 See, e.g., State v. Schovanec, 326 Conn. 310 , 324–25, 163 A.3d 581 (2017) (reviewing unpreserved double jeopardy claim under Golding); see also, e.g., In re Vada V., 343 Conn. 730 , 741, 275 A.3d 1172 (2022) (“[t]he first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim” (internal quotation marks omitted)).	1	2026–2026
State v. Carlos G. neutral conn · 2026 1 sentence 2026“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos G., 354 Conn. 21, 26 , 349 A.3d 1 (2026). 4 The state does not argue that the defendant has implicitly waived any challenge to the trial court’s instructions pursuant to State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011).	1	2026–2026
Bozelko v. Venditto green conn · 2017	1	2025–2025
State v. Brito green conn · 2017	1	2025–2025
Osborn v. City of Waterbury green conn · 2018	1	2025–2025
State v. Andaz green connappct · 2018	1	2025–2025
State v. Brito green connappct · 2017	1	2025–2025
State v. Turner green connappct · 2018	1	2021–2021
State v. Turner green conn · 2020	1	2021–2021
State v. Steele green connappct · 2017	1	2018–2018
Concerned Citizens v. Department of Environmental Protection neutral conn · 1995	1	2017–2017
State v. Henderson green conn · 1995	1	2017–2017
State v. Ricketts green connappct · 1995	1	2017–2017
State v. Gordon green connappct · 2002	1	2017–2017
Lenon v. Pung neutral scotus · 1995	1	2017–2017
Kelley v. Maryland green scotus · 1995	1	2017–2017

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-21 (18) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59 (13) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-199 (12) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-70 (12) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86e (12) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-35a (10) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-49 (10) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-278 (8) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-134 (8) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-217 (7) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-48 (7) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-279 (6)

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.

Where else courts name it

CT 66 (1989–2026) OR 6 (2007–2025)

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

Your account

Appearance