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 2011–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Biro v. Matzgreen2 sentences2024Our construction of the operative contract also is informed by the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning ‘‘the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stratford Police Dept. v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, 343 Conn. 62, 74 , 272 A.3d 639 (2022); see also Biro v. Matz, 132 Conn. App. 272, 282 , 33 A.3d 742 (2011) (‘‘[l]ong a staple of our statutory interpretation, this court also has applied the principle [of expressio unius est exclusio alterius] to contractual agreements’’). 2024Our construction of the operative contract also is informed by the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning ‘‘the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stratford Police Dept. v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, 343 Conn. 62, 74 , 272 A.3d 639 (2022); see also Biro v. Matz, 132 Conn. App. 272, 282 , 33 A.3d 742 (2011) (‘‘[l]ong a staple of our statutory interpretation, this court also has applied the principle [of expressio unius est exclusio alterius] to contractual agreements’’). | 1 | 1 |
Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness, LLCgreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness, LLC, 342 Conn. 25, 36 , 268 A.3d 630 (2022); see also Borelli v. Renaldi, supra, 336 Conn. 109 (Ecker, J., dissenting) (citing doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and noting that ‘‘the legislature mani- festly paid very close attention to detail in fashioning subsection (b)’’). | 1 | 1 |
Honulik v. Town of Greenwichgreen2 sentences2011See Honulik v. Greenwich, 293 Conn. 641 , 694 n.5, 980 A.2d 845 (2009) (Zarella, J., dissenting) (“[w]hen the items expressed are members of an associated group or series, we may invoke the canon of statutory construction known as expressio unius est exclusio alterius . . . and infer that the item not mentioned . . . was excluded by deliberate choice” [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2011See Honulik v. Greenwich, 293 Conn. 641 , 694 n.5, 980 A.2d 845 (2009) (Zarella, J., dissenting) (“[w]hen the items expressed are members of an associated group or series, we may invoke the canon of statutory construction known as expressio unius est exclusio alterius . . . and infer that the item not mentioned . . . was excluded by deliberate choice” [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mayer v. Historic Dist. Comm'n of Groton
green
2 sentences2025On appeal, however, the defendants attempt to pursue a different claim, arguing that, ‘‘[d]espite the ‘includes, but is not limited to’ language, the legislature’s deliberate exclusion of the definition of ‘mental disability’ while explicitly including the definition of ‘physical disability’ clearly indicates an intent that the definition of ‘mental disability’ in [§] 46a- 51 (20) does not apply to the phrase ‘physical or mental disability’ used in [§] 46a-64b.’’ They rely on ‘‘the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius—the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another—[under 2025On appeal, however, the defendants attempt to pursue a different claim, arguing that, ‘‘[d]espite the ‘includes, but is not limited to’ language, the legislature’s deliberate exclusion of the definition of ‘mental disability’ while explicitly including the definition of ‘physical disability’ clearly indicates an intent that the definition of ‘mental disability’ in [§] 46a- 51 (20) does not apply to the phrase ‘physical or mental disability’ used in [§] 46a-64b.’’ They rely on ‘‘the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius—the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another—[under | 3 | 2022–2025 |
Stratford Police Dept. v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners
green
1 sentence2024Our construction of the operative contract also is informed by the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning ‘‘the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stratford Police Dept. v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, 343 Conn. 62, 74 , 272 A.3d 639 (2022); see also Biro v. Matz, 132 Conn. App. 272, 282 , 33 A.3d 742 (2011) (‘‘[l]ong a staple of our statutory interpretation, this court also has applied the principle [of expressio unius est exclusio alterius] to contractual agreements’’). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Bell
green
2 sentences2016State v. Bell, 303 Conn. 246, 265 , 33 A.3d 167 (2011). 2016State v. Bell, 303 Conn. 246, 265 , 33 A.3d 167 (2011). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.