defined presumption in Connecticut

7 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2020 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Sheff v. O'Neillgreen conn · 1996 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010Cf. Moore v. Ganim, 233 Conn. 557, 629 , 660 A.2d 742 (1995) ( Peters, C.J., concurring) ("well established jurisprudential doctrine counsels us to construe ambiguous constitutional principles narrowly"). [18] In contrast to the traditional standard advanced by the plurality, the foregoing approach, which properly considers the significant discretion to which the legislative branch is entitled in matters of public elementary and secondary education; see Sheff v. O'Neill, supra, 238 Conn. at 37 , 678 A.2d 1267 ; also gives due regard to the prudential considerations that militate strongly in fa 2010Cf. Moore v. Ganim, 233 Conn. 557, 629 , 660 A.2d 742 (1995) ( Peters, C.J., concurring) ("well established jurisprudential doctrine counsels us to construe ambiguous constitutional principles narrowly"). [18] In contrast to the traditional standard advanced by the plurality, the foregoing approach, which properly considers the significant discretion to which the legislative branch is entitled in matters of public elementary and secondary education; see Sheff v. O'Neill, supra, 238 Conn. at 37 , 678 A.2d 1267 ; also gives due regard to the prudential considerations that militate strongly in fa	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 (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Moore v. Ganim green conn · 1995 2 sentences 2018Cf. Moore v. Ganim , 233 Conn. 557 , 629, 660 A.2d 742 (1995) ( Peters, C. 2018Cf. Moore v. Ganim , 233 Conn. 557 , 629, 660 A.2d 742 (1995) ( Peters, C.	2	2010–2018
Jepsen v. Camassar green conn · 2018 1 sentence 2020Statements of others, including the interviewers, may be relevant to show the circumstances.’’ (Emphasis altered; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., quoting State v. Abraham, 181 Conn. App. 703, 713 , 187 A.3d 445 , cert. denied, 329 Conn. 908 , 186 A.3d 12 (2018).	1	2020–2020
State v. Abraham green conn · 2018 1 sentence 2020Statements of others, including the interviewers, may be relevant to show the circumstances.’’ (Emphasis altered; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., quoting State v. Abraham, 181 Conn. App. 703, 713 , 187 A.3d 445 , cert. denied, 329 Conn. 908 , 186 A.3d 12 (2018).	1	2020–2020
State v. Manuel T. neutral conn · 2019 1 sentence 2020In Manuel T., this court defined the test for determin- ing the admissibility of hearsay statements under § 8- 3 (5) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.15 See State v. Manuel T., 186 Conn. App. 51 , 61–62, 198 A.3d 648 (2018), cert. granted in part, 330 Conn. 968 , 200 A.3d 189 (2019). ‘‘[T]he statements of a declarant may be admissible under the medical treatment exception if made in circumstances from which it reasonably may be inferred that the declarant understands that the interview has a medical purpose.	1	2020–2020
City of Norwich v. Loskoutova neutral conn · 2019 2 sentences 2020Statements of others, including the interviewers, may be relevant to show the circumstances.’’ (Emphasis altered; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., quoting State v. Abraham, 181 Conn. App. 703, 713 , 187 A.3d 445 , cert. denied, 329 Conn. 908 , 186 A.3d 12 (2018). 2020In Manuel T., this court defined the test for determin- ing the admissibility of hearsay statements under § 8- 3 (5) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.15 See State v. Manuel T., 186 Conn. App. 51 , 61–62, 198 A.3d 648 (2018), cert. granted in part, 330 Conn. 968 , 200 A.3d 189 (2019). ‘‘[T]he statements of a declarant may be admissible under the medical treatment exception if made in circumstances from which it reasonably may be inferred that the declarant understands that the interview has a medical purpose.	1	2020–2020
State v. Abraham green connappct · 2018 2 sentences 2020Statements of others, including the interviewers, may be relevant to show the circumstances.’’ (Emphasis altered; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., quoting State v. Abraham, 181 Conn. App. 703, 713 , 187 A.3d 445 , cert. denied, 329 Conn. 908 , 186 A.3d 12 (2018). 2020Statements of others, including the interviewers, may be relevant to show the circumstances.’’ (Emphasis altered; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., quoting State v. Abraham, 181 Conn. App. 703, 713 , 187 A.3d 445 , cert. denied, 329 Conn. 908 , 186 A.3d 12 (2018).	1	2020–2020
State v. Manuel T. green connappct · 2018 2 sentences 2020In Manuel T., this court defined the test for determin- ing the admissibility of hearsay statements under § 8- 3 (5) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.15 See State v. Manuel T., 186 Conn. App. 51 , 61–62, 198 A.3d 648 (2018), cert. granted in part, 330 Conn. 968 , 200 A.3d 189 (2019). ‘‘[T]he statements of a declarant may be admissible under the medical treatment exception if made in circumstances from which it reasonably may be inferred that the declarant understands that the interview has a medical purpose. 2020In Manuel T., this court defined the test for determin- ing the admissibility of hearsay statements under § 8- 3 (5) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.15 See State v. Manuel T., 186 Conn. App. 51 , 61–62, 198 A.3d 648 (2018), cert. granted in part, 330 Conn. 968 , 200 A.3d 189 (2019). ‘‘[T]he statements of a declarant may be admissible under the medical treatment exception if made in circumstances from which it reasonably may be inferred that the declarant understands that the interview has a medical purpose.	1	2020–2020
Shays v. Local Grievance Committee green conn · 1985 2 sentences 1993A well defined exception to the mootness rule is where the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Moshier v. Goodnow, 217 Conn. 303, 307 , 586 A.2d 557 (1991); Shays v. Local Grievance Committee, 197 Conn. 566, 573 , 499 A.2d 1158 (1985). 1993A well defined exception to the mootness rule is where the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Moshier v. Goodnow, 217 Conn. 303, 307 , 586 A.2d 557 (1991); Shays v. Local Grievance Committee, 197 Conn. 566, 573 , 499 A.2d 1158 (1985).	1	1993–1993
Moshier v. Goodnow green conn · 1991 2 sentences 1993A well defined exception to the mootness rule is where the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Moshier v. Goodnow, 217 Conn. 303, 307 , 586 A.2d 557 (1991); Shays v. Local Grievance Committee, 197 Conn. 566, 573 , 499 A.2d 1158 (1985). 1993A well defined exception to the mootness rule is where the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Moshier v. Goodnow, 217 Conn. 303, 307 , 586 A.2d 557 (1991); Shays v. Local Grievance Committee, 197 Conn. 566, 573 , 499 A.2d 1158 (1985).	1	1993–1993
State v. Davis green connappct · 1993 1 sentence 1993In State v. Davies, 29 Conn. App. 801 (1993) the court defined this standard "as meaning a rational belief of the trial court that the evidence is adequate or sufficient to prove a violation".	1	1993–1993
State v. Miller green conn · 1982 2 sentences 1984State v. Miller, 186 Conn. 654, 668 , 443 A.2d 906 (1982) (and cases cited therein). 1984State v. Miller, 186 Conn. 654, 668 , 443 A.2d 906 (1982) (and cases cited therein).	1	1984–1984
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 1982State v. Pina, supra, 264 ; State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 150-52 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. 1982State v. Pina, supra, 264 ; State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 150-52 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L.	1	1982–1982
Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 1982State v. Pina, supra, 264 ; State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 150-52 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. 1982State v. Pina, supra, 264 ; State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 150-52 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L.	1	1982–1982
Yuen v. Internal Revenue Service green scotus · 1981 2 sentences 1982State v. Pina, supra, 264 ; State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 150-52 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. 1982State v. Pina, supra, 264 ; State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 150-52 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L.	1	1982–1982
State v. Stankowski green conn · 1981 2 sentences 1982State v. Pina, supra, 264 ; State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 150-52 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. 1982State v. Pina, supra, 264 ; State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 150-52 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L.	1	1982–1982

Where else courts name it

PA 33 (1939–2025) IL 23 (1897–2009) NY 23 (1902–2026) CA 19 (1930–2021) NJ 18 (1926–2024) TX 17 (1922–2008) OH 14 (1959–2026) AL 12 (1896–2011) LA 10 (1948–2001) MA 9 (1932–2025) KS 9 (1967–2018) MN 9 (1918–1997) MI 8 (1924–2025) CT 7 (1982–2020) NE 7 (1903–2009) IA 7 (1924–2011) WY 7 (1987–2014) IN 7 (1939–2018) MD 6 (1975–2022) NC 6 (1904–2014) AR 6 (1870–2015) KY 5 (1929–2026) TN 4 (1931–2004) WI 4 (1919–1995) OR 4 (1895–2006) MO 4 (1918–2015) AK 3 (1986–2023) MT 3 (1953–1996) FL 3 (1943–1999) ID 3 (1992–2013) CO 3 (1983–2011) WA 2 (1986–2016) AZ 2 (1985–1996) WV 2 (1982–1983) OK 2 (1930–1930)

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