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.
8 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1989–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Levinson v. Connecticut Board of Chiropractic Examiners
green
2 sentences2022Our Supreme Court has held that ‘‘[a]s long as the board hearing and deciding a licensing matter is composed of at least a majority of experts in the field involved in the case, the board may rely on its own expertise in evaluating charges against persons licensed by the board and the requisite standard of care by which to judge such cases.’’ Levinson v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 211 Conn. 508, 525 , 560 A.2d 403 (1989); see also General Statutes § 4-178 (8) (administrative ‘‘agency’s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge may be used in the evaluation of the eviden 2022Our Supreme Court has held that ‘‘[a]s long as the board hearing and deciding a licensing matter is composed of at least a majority of experts in the field involved in the case, the board may rely on its own expertise in evaluating charges against persons licensed by the board and the requisite standard of care by which to judge such cases.’’ Levinson v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 211 Conn. 508, 525 , 560 A.2d 403 (1989); see also General Statutes § 4-178 (8) (administrative ‘‘agency’s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge may be used in the evaluation of the eviden | 6 | 1990–2022 |
Jutkowitz v. Department of Health Services
green
2 sentences2000Our Supreme Court has noted that as long as an administrative board consists of a “majority of experts in the field involved in the case, the board may rely on its own expertise in evaluating charges against persons licensed by the board and the requisite standard of care by which to judge such cases.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jutkowitz v. Dept. of Health Services, 220 Conn. 86, 111 , 596 A.2d 374 (1991); see also Pet v. Dept. of Health Services, supra, 228 Conn. 666 . 2000Our Supreme Court has noted that as long as an administrative board consists of a “majority of experts in the field involved in the case, the board may rely on its own expertise in evaluating charges against persons licensed by the board and the requisite standard of care by which to judge such cases.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jutkowitz v. Dept. of Health Services, 220 Conn. 86, 111 , 596 A.2d 374 (1991); see also Pet v. Dept. of Health Services, supra, 228 Conn. 666 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Kundrat v. Commonwealth, State Dental Council & Examining Board
green
2 sentences1989Our view of this matter is supported by Kundrat v. Dental Council & Examining Board, 67 Pa. Commw. 341 , 447 A.2d 355 (1982). 1989Our view of this matter is supported by Kundrat v. Dental Council & Examining Board, 67 Pa. Commw. 341 , 447 A.2d 355 (1982). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.