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 1983–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Stepney
green
2 sentences1993“Among the recognized exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule is that for admissions of a party.” State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 250 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1984), citing State v. DeMatteo, 186 Conn. 696, 702 , 443 A.2d 915 (1982); C. 1993“Among the recognized exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule is that for admissions of a party.” State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 250 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1984), citing State v. DeMatteo, 186 Conn. 696, 702 , 443 A.2d 915 (1982); C. | 3 | 1991–2000 |
Stepney v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences1993“Among the recognized exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule is that for admissions of a party.” State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 250 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1984), citing State v. DeMatteo, 186 Conn. 696, 702 , 443 A.2d 915 (1982); C. 1993“Among the recognized exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule is that for admissions of a party.” State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 250 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1984), citing State v. DeMatteo, 186 Conn. 696, 702 , 443 A.2d 915 (1982); C. | 3 | 1991–2000 |
Helton v. United States
green
2 sentences1998Among the recognized exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule is that for admissions of a party.” Id., 250 . 18 “The statements made out of court by a party-opponent are universally deemed admissible when offered against him ... so long as they are relevant and material to issues in the case. 1991“Among the recognized exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule is that for admissions of a party.” State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 250 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L. | 3 | 1991–2000 |
State v. DeMatteo
green
2 sentences1993“Among the recognized exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule is that for admissions of a party.” State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 250 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1984), citing State v. DeMatteo, 186 Conn. 696, 702 , 443 A.2d 915 (1982); C. 1993“Among the recognized exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule is that for admissions of a party.” State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 250 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1984), citing State v. DeMatteo, 186 Conn. 696, 702 , 443 A.2d 915 (1982); C. | 3 | 1983–1993 |
State v. Woodson
green
2 sentences2010“Among the recognized exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule is that for admissions of a party. . . . [Statements made out of court by a party-opponent are universally deemed admissible when offered against him ... so long as they are relevant and material to issues in the case. . . . [T]he vast weight of authority, judicial, legislative, and scholarly, supports the admissibility without restriction of any statement of a party offered against that party at trial.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Woodson, 227 Conn. 1, 15 , 629 A.2d 386 (1993); see Conn. Code 2010“Among the recognized exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule is that for admissions of a party. . . . [Statements made out of court by a party-opponent are universally deemed admissible when offered against him ... so long as they are relevant and material to issues in the case. . . . [T]he vast weight of authority, judicial, legislative, and scholarly, supports the admissibility without restriction of any statement of a party offered against that party at trial.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Woodson, 227 Conn. 1, 15 , 629 A.2d 386 (1993); see Conn. Code | 1 | 2010–2010 |
McDermott Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
green
1 sentence1991Ed. 2d 772 , reh. denied, 466 U.S. 954 , 104 S. Ct. 2163 , 80 L. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Stepney v. Connecticut
green
1 sentence1991Ed. 2d 772 , reh. denied, 466 U.S. 954 , 104 S. Ct. 2163 , 80 L. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Christine Vaughn
neutral
1 sentence1991Ed. 2d 772 , reh. denied, 466 U.S. 954 , 104 S. Ct. 2163 , 80 L. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hirsch v. Thrall
green
2 sentences1983An analysis of the differences between civil and criminal trials indicates that in Villafane our reliance on civil precedents to define admissions in criminal proceedings was misplaced. *253 In a civil case each party files pleadings which are conclusive as to matters admitted therein; Hirsch v. Thrall, 148 Conn. 202, 206-207 , 169 A.2d 271 (1961); each may be required to submit to extensive pretrial discovery; Practice Book §§ 219-249; and each may be called to testify by the opposing party. 1983An analysis of the differences between civil and criminal trials indicates that in Villafane our reliance on civil precedents to define admissions in criminal proceedings was misplaced. *253 In a civil case each party files pleadings which are conclusive as to matters admitted therein; Hirsch v. Thrall, 148 Conn. 202, 206-207 , 169 A.2d 271 (1961); each may be required to submit to extensive pretrial discovery; Practice Book §§ 219-249; and each may be called to testify by the opposing party. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.