7 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
North Carolina v. Alfordgreen2 sentences2004In April, 2000, the petitioner pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine; see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S. Ct. 160 , 27 L. 2004In April, 2000, the petitioner pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine; see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S. Ct. 160 , 27 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Presidential Village, LLC v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2022Therefore, pursuant to Practice Book § 70-4, this appeal will be considered on the basis of the plaintiff’s brief, the plaintiff’s oral arguments before this court, and the record only. 5 Specifically, the defendant was arrested for possession of a controlled substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a) (1) and for the sale of a narcotic substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b) (1) (A). 6 See footnote 2 of this opinion. 7 In Presidential Village, LLC v. Phillips, 325 Conn. 394 , 401–402, 158 A.3d 772 (2017), our Supreme Court explained that a notice to quit that is 2022Therefore, pursuant to Practice Book § 70-4, this appeal will be considered on the basis of the plaintiff’s brief, the plaintiff’s oral arguments before this court, and the record only. 5 Specifically, the defendant was arrested for possession of a controlled substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a) (1) and for the sale of a narcotic substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b) (1) (A). 6 See footnote 2 of this opinion. 7 In Presidential Village, LLC v. Phillips, 325 Conn. 394 , 401–402, 158 A.3d 772 (2017), our Supreme Court explained that a notice to quit that is | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Golding
green
2 sentences2018The defendant conceded before the Appellate Court that his double jeopardy claim was unpreserved and sought review under State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 2018The defendant conceded before the Appellate Court that his double jeopardy claim was unpreserved and sought review under State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2010State v. Clark, 107 Conn. App. 819, 821 , 947 A.2d 351 (2008). 2010State v. Clark, 107 Conn. App. 819, 821 , 947 A.2d 351 (2008). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Nunes
neutral
2 sentences2002State v. Nunes, 61 Conn. App. 668, 683 , 767 A.2d 181 (2001). 2002State v. Nunes, 61 Conn. App. 668, 683 , 767 A.2d 181 (2001). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
2 sentences2000On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) found that he did not have standing to challenge the validity of the search and seizure warrant pursuant to which the marijuana was discovered, (2) applied the rule in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S. Ct. 2674 , 57 L. 2000On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) found that he did not have standing to challenge the validity of the search and seizure warrant pursuant to which the marijuana was discovered, (2) applied the rule in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S. Ct. 2674 , 57 L. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Illinois v. Gates
green
2 sentences1987The defendant, Alan Morrill, was convicted upon a conditional plea of nolo contendere 1 to a substitute information charging him with illegal sale of a controlled substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (b). 2 The plea of nolo contendere was entered following the denial by the trial court, Miaño, J., of: (1) a motion to suppress evidence challenging the facial validity of the warrant and sufficiency of the affidavit, under the standards of Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S. Ct. 2317 , 76 L. 1987The defendant, Alan Morrill, was convicted upon a conditional plea of nolo contendere 1 to a substitute information charging him with illegal sale of a controlled substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (b). 2 The plea of nolo contendere was entered following the denial by the trial court, Miaño, J., of: (1) a motion to suppress evidence challenging the facial validity of the warrant and sufficiency of the affidavit, under the standards of Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S. Ct. 2317 , 76 L. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Seath v. Regulations & Permits Administration
green
1 sentence1987Ed. 2d 527 , reh. denied, 463U.S. 237, 104 S. Ct. 33 , 77 L. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Harris v. Harris
green
1 sentence1987Ed. 2d 527 , reh. denied, 463U.S. 237, 104 S. Ct. 33 , 77 L. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.