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 1 courts 1997–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Trafton v. Correiagreen2 sentences1999State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, supra, 288 ; see State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claim not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not subject to Golding review). 1998State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, 48 Conn. App. 283, 288 , 709 A.2d 39 (1998); see also State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claims not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not entitled to Golding review). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Chapmangreen2 sentences1999State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, supra, 288 ; see State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claim not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not subject to Golding review). 1998State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, 48 Conn. App. 283, 288 , 709 A.2d 39 (1998); see also State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claims not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not entitled to Golding review). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lindstromgreen2 sentences1999State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, supra, 288 ; see State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claim not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not subject to Golding review). 1999State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, supra, 288 ; see State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claim not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not subject to Golding review). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Troupegreen2 sentences1999It is well settled that the doctrine of constancy of accusation does not violate an accused’s constitutional rights to confrontation; State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 290-91 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996); or to due process. 1999It is well settled that the doctrine of constancy of accusation does not violate an accused’s constitutional rights to confrontation; State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 290-91 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996); or to due process. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Villanueva
green
2 sentences2001State v. Villanueva, 44 Conn. App. 457, 460 , 689 A.2d 1141 , cert, denied, 240 Conn. 930 , 693 A.2d 302 (1997). [A] person to whom a sexual assault victim has reported the assault may testify only with respect to the fact and timing of the victim’s complaint; any testimony by the witness regarding the details surrounding the assault must be strictly limited to those necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charge, including, for example, the time and place of the attack or the identity of the alleged perpetrator. . . . 1999State v. Villanueva, 44 Conn. App. 457, 460 , 689 A.2d 1141 , cert. denied, 240 Conn. 930 , 693 A.2d 302 (1997). “[A] person to whom a sexual assault victim has reported the assault may testify only with respect to the fact and timing of the victim’s complaint; any testimony by the witness regarding the details surrounding the assault must be strictly limited to those necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charge, including, for example, the time and place of the attack or the identity of the alleged pexpetrator. . . . | 2 | 1999–2001 |
State v. Silva
green
2 sentences2001State v. Villanueva, 44 Conn. App. 457, 460 , 689 A.2d 1141 , cert, denied, 240 Conn. 930 , 693 A.2d 302 (1997). [A] person to whom a sexual assault victim has reported the assault may testify only with respect to the fact and timing of the victim’s complaint; any testimony by the witness regarding the details surrounding the assault must be strictly limited to those necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charge, including, for example, the time and place of the attack or the identity of the alleged perpetrator. . . . 1999State v. Villanueva, 44 Conn. App. 457, 460 , 689 A.2d 1141 , cert. denied, 240 Conn. 930 , 693 A.2d 302 (1997). “[A] person to whom a sexual assault victim has reported the assault may testify only with respect to the fact and timing of the victim’s complaint; any testimony by the witness regarding the details surrounding the assault must be strictly limited to those necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charge, including, for example, the time and place of the attack or the identity of the alleged pexpetrator. . . . | 2 | 1999–2001 |
State v. Villanueva
neutral
2 sentences2001State v. Villanueva, 44 Conn. App. 457, 460 , 689 A.2d 1141 , cert, denied, 240 Conn. 930 , 693 A.2d 302 (1997). [A] person to whom a sexual assault victim has reported the assault may testify only with respect to the fact and timing of the victim’s complaint; any testimony by the witness regarding the details surrounding the assault must be strictly limited to those necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charge, including, for example, the time and place of the attack or the identity of the alleged perpetrator. . . . 2001State v. Villanueva, 44 Conn. App. 457, 460 , 689 A.2d 1141 , cert, denied, 240 Conn. 930 , 693 A.2d 302 (1997). [A] person to whom a sexual assault victim has reported the assault may testify only with respect to the fact and timing of the victim’s complaint; any testimony by the witness regarding the details surrounding the assault must be strictly limited to those necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charge, including, for example, the time and place of the attack or the identity of the alleged perpetrator. . . . | 2 | 1999–2001 |
Cadle Co. v. C.F.D. Development Corp.
green
2 sentences1999State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, supra, 288 ; see State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claim not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not subject to Golding review). 1998State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, 48 Conn. App. 283, 288 , 709 A.2d 39 (1998); see also State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claims not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not entitled to Golding review). | 2 | 1998–1999 |
Lauer v. Zoning Commission
green
2 sentences1999State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, supra, 288 ; see State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claim not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not subject to Golding review). 1998State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, 48 Conn. App. 283, 288 , 709 A.2d 39 (1998); see also State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claims not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not entitled to Golding review). | 2 | 1998–1999 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences1999State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, supra, 288 ; see State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claim not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not subject to Golding review). 1999State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, supra, 288 ; see State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claim not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not subject to Golding review). | 2 | 1998–1999 |
State v. Orhan
green
2 sentences2000“The doctrine originally was premised on the arguably inaccurate premise that, if a woman had been sexually assaulted, it would be natural for her to confide in others.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Orhan, 52 Conn. App. 231, 238 , 726 A.2d 629 (1999). 2000“The doctrine originally was premised on the arguably inaccurate premise that, if a woman had been sexually assaulted, it would be natural for her to confide in others.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Orhan, 52 Conn. App. 231, 238 , 726 A.2d 629 (1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Cansler
green
2 sentences2000“It is well settled that the doctrine of constancy of accusation does not violate an accused’s constitutional right to confrontation ... or due process.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Cansler, 54 Conn. App. 819, 824 , 738 A.2d 1095 (1999). 2000“It is well settled that the doctrine of constancy of accusation does not violate an accused’s constitutional right to confrontation ... or due process.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Cansler, 54 Conn. App. 819, 824 , 738 A.2d 1095 (1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Eged
green
2 sentences1998State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, 48 Conn. App. 283, 288 , 709 A.2d 39 (1998); see also State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claims not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not entitled to Golding review). 1998State v. Troupe, [supra, 237 Conn. 293 ].” State v. Eged, 48 Conn. App. 283, 288 , 709 A.2d 39 (1998); see also State v. Lindstrom, 46 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 702 A.2d 410 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 947 , 704 A.2d 802 (1997) (“[o]ur Supreme Court has held that the constancy of accusation doctrine does not violate the right to confrontation”); State v. Jones, 44 Conn. App. 476, 487 , 691 A.2d 14 , cert. denied, 241 Conn. 901 , 693 A.2d 304 (1997) (evidentiary claims not of constitutional magnitude and therefore not entitled to Golding review). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Martin
green
1 sentence1997See State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 290-91 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation); State v. Kelley, 229 Conn. 557, 563-67 , 643 A.2d 854 (1994) (holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection); State v. Martin, 38 Conn. App. 731, 735-39 , 663 A.2d 1078 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 921 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996) (holding that doctrine does not violate due process). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Owen
green
1 sentence1997See State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 290-91 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation); State v. Kelley, 229 Conn. 557, 563-67 , 643 A.2d 854 (1994) (holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection); State v. Martin, 38 Conn. App. 731, 735-39 , 663 A.2d 1078 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 921 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996) (holding that doctrine does not violate due process). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Kelley
green
2 sentences1997See State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 290-91 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation); State v. Kelley, 229 Conn. 557, 563-67 , 643 A.2d 854 (1994) (holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection); State v. Martin, 38 Conn. App. 731, 735-39 , 663 A.2d 1078 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 921 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996) (holding that doctrine does not violate due process). 1997See State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 290-91 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation); State v. Kelley, 229 Conn. 557, 563-67 , 643 A.2d 854 (1994) (holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection); State v. Martin, 38 Conn. App. 731, 735-39 , 663 A.2d 1078 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 921 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996) (holding that doctrine does not violate due process). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences1997See State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 290-91 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation); State v. Kelley, 229 Conn. 557, 563-67 , 643 A.2d 854 (1994) (holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection); State v. Martin, 38 Conn. App. 731, 735-39 , 663 A.2d 1078 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 921 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996) (holding that doctrine does not violate due process). 1997See State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 290-91 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation); State v. Kelley, 229 Conn. 557, 563-67 , 643 A.2d 854 (1994) (holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection); State v. Martin, 38 Conn. App. 731, 735-39 , 663 A.2d 1078 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 921 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996) (holding that doctrine does not violate due process). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.