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 2 courts 1982–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
Steiber v. City of Bridgeport
green
2 sentences1982Steiber v. Bridgeport, 145 Conn. 363, 366 .67, 143 A.2d 434 (1958); Holden & Daly, Connecticut Evidence § 67 (d). 1982Steiber v. Bridgeport, 145 Conn. 363, 366 .67, 143 A.2d 434 (1958); Holden & Daly, Connecticut Evidence § 67 (d). | 2 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Santiago
green
2 sentences2005This final determination requires . . . the consideration of several factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the misconduct, the frequency of the misconduct, the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, the strength of the curative mea sures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Santiago, 269 Conn. 726, 756 , 850 A.2d 199 (2004). 2005This final determination requires . . . the consideration of several factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the misconduct, the frequency of the misconduct, the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, the strength of the curative mea sures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Santiago, 269 Conn. 726, 756 , 850 A.2d 199 (2004). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2004Those factors were first set forth in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987). 2004Those factors were first set forth in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Weihing v. Silbert
green
1 sentence2003This final determination requires . . . the consideration of several factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the misconduct, the frequency of the misconduct, the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, the strength of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dubose, 75 Conn. App. 163, 178-79 , 815 A.2d 213 , cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 , 819 A.2d 841 (2003). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Singh
green
2 sentences2003This final determination requires . . . the consideration of several factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the misconduct, the frequency of the misconduct, the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, the strength of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693, 723 , 793 A.2d 226 (2002); see also State v. Whipper, supra, 258 Conn. 262 -63. 2003This final determination requires . . . the consideration of several factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the misconduct, the frequency of the misconduct, the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, the strength of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693, 723 , 793 A.2d 226 (2002); see also State v. Whipper, supra, 258 Conn. 262 -63. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Francis D.
green
1 sentence2003This final determination requires . . . the consideration of several factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the misconduct, the frequency of the misconduct, the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, the strength of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dubose, 75 Conn. App. 163, 178-79 , 815 A.2d 213 , cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 , 819 A.2d 841 (2003). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Dubose
green
2 sentences2003This final determination requires . . . the consideration of several factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the misconduct, the frequency of the misconduct, the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, the strength of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dubose, 75 Conn. App. 163, 178-79 , 815 A.2d 213 , cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 , 819 A.2d 841 (2003). 2003This final determination requires . . . the consideration of several factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the misconduct, the frequency of the misconduct, the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, the strength of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dubose, 75 Conn. App. 163, 178-79 , 815 A.2d 213 , cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 , 819 A.2d 841 (2003). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. McGowan
green
2 sentences1998These include: (1) whether the United States has retained `title to the lands which it permits the Indians to occupy' and `authority to enact regulations and protective laws respecting this territory,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. McGowan , 302 U.S. 535 , 539 , 58 S.Ct. 286 , 288 , 82 L.Ed. 410 (1938); (2) `the nature of the area in question, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian tribes and to the federal government, and the established practice of government agencies toward the area,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. Martine , 442 F.2d 1022 , 1023 (10 1998These include: (1) whether the United States has retained `title to the lands which it permits the Indians to occupy' and `authority to enact regulations and protective laws respecting this territory,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. McGowan , 302 U.S. 535 , 539 , 58 S.Ct. 286 , 288 , 82 L.Ed. 410 (1938); (2) `the nature of the area in question, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian tribes and to the federal government, and the established practice of government agencies toward the area,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. Martine , 442 F.2d 1022 , 1023 (10 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
cluster 373964
green
1 sentence1998These include: (1) whether the United States has retained `title to the lands which it permits the Indians to occupy' and `authority to enact regulations and protective laws respecting this territory,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. McGowan , 302 U.S. 535 , 539 , 58 S.Ct. 286 , 288 , 82 L.Ed. 410 (1938); (2) `the nature of the area in question, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian tribes and to the federal government, and the established practice of government agencies toward the area,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. Martine , 442 F.2d 1022 , 1023 (10 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
James Russell Weddell v. Mark Meierhenry, Attorney General of the State of South Dakota
green
2 sentences1998These include: (1) whether the United States has retained `title to the lands which it permits the Indians to occupy' and `authority to enact regulations and protective laws respecting this territory,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. McGowan , 302 U.S. 535 , 539 , 58 S.Ct. 286 , 288 , 82 L.Ed. 410 (1938); (2) `the nature of the area in question, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian tribes and to the federal government, and the established practice of government agencies toward the area,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. Martine , 442 F.2d 1022 , 1023 (10 1998These include: (1) whether the United States has retained `title to the lands which it permits the Indians to occupy' and `authority to enact regulations and protective laws respecting this territory,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. McGowan , 302 U.S. 535 , 539 , 58 S.Ct. 286 , 288 , 82 L.Ed. 410 (1938); (2) `the nature of the area in question, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian tribes and to the federal government, and the established practice of government agencies toward the area,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. Martine , 442 F.2d 1022 , 1023 (10 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. State of South Dakota
green
1 sentence1998These include: (1) whether the United States has retained `title to the lands which it permits the Indians to occupy' and `authority to enact regulations and protective laws respecting this territory,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. McGowan , 302 U.S. 535 , 539 , 58 S.Ct. 286 , 288 , 82 L.Ed. 410 (1938); (2) `the nature of the area in question, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian tribes and to the federal government, and the established practice of government agencies toward the area,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. Martine , 442 F.2d 1022 , 1023 (10 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Gilbert George Martine
green
1 sentence1998These include: (1) whether the United States has retained `title to the lands which it permits the Indians to occupy' and `authority to enact regulations and protective laws respecting this territory,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. McGowan , 302 U.S. 535 , 539 , 58 S.Ct. 286 , 288 , 82 L.Ed. 410 (1938); (2) `the nature of the area in question, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian tribes and to the federal government, and the established practice of government agencies toward the area,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. Martine , 442 F.2d 1022 , 1023 (10 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Ellsworth Youngbear v. Lou v. Brewer, Warden of the Iowa State Penitentiary at Fort Madison
green
1 sentence1998These include: (1) whether the United States has retained `title to the lands which it permits the Indians to occupy' and `authority to enact regulations and protective laws respecting this territory,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. McGowan , 302 U.S. 535 , 539 , 58 S.Ct. 286 , 288 , 82 L.Ed. 410 (1938); (2) `the nature of the area in question, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian tribes and to the federal government, and the established practice of government agencies toward the area,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. Martine , 442 F.2d 1022 , 1023 (10 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United Steelworkers v. Sadlowski
green
1 sentence1998These include: (1) whether the United States has retained `title to the lands which it permits the Indians to occupy' and `authority to enact regulations and protective laws respecting this territory,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. McGowan , 302 U.S. 535 , 539 , 58 S.Ct. 286 , 288 , 82 L.Ed. 410 (1938); (2) `the nature of the area in question, the relationship of the inhabitants of the area to Indian tribes and to the federal government, and the established practice of government agencies toward the area,' 636 F.2d at 212 , citing United States v. Martine , 442 F.2d 1022 , 1023 (10 | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.