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 1984–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Evans v. Connecticutgreen2 sentences1998See State v. Evans, 205 Conn. 528, 535 , 534 A.2d 1159 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 988 , 108 S. Ct. 1292 , 99 L. 1998See State v. Evans, 205 Conn. 528, 535 , 534 A.2d 1159 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 988 , 108 S. Ct. 1292 , 99 L. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Reliance Insurancegreen1 sentence1998See State v. Evans, 205 Conn. 528, 535 , 534 A.2d 1159 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 988 , 108 S. Ct. 1292 , 99 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Evansgreen2 sentences1998See State v. Evans, 205 Conn. 528, 535 , 534 A.2d 1159 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 988 , 108 S. Ct. 1292 , 99 L. 1998See State v. Evans, 205 Conn. 528, 535 , 534 A.2d 1159 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 988 , 108 S. Ct. 1292 , 99 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsgreen2 sentences1991See State v. Johns, 184 Conn. 369 , 373 n.6, 439 A.2d 1049 (1981). 1991See State v. Johns, 184 Conn. 369 , 373 n.6, 439 A.2d 1049 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Associates Investment Company, Intervenor v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1984United States v. One 1976 Porsche 911S, 670 F.2d 810, 812 (9th Cir. 1979) (.226 grams marijuana); United States v. One 1975 Mercedes 280S, 590 F.2d 196, 198 (6th Cir. 1978) (butts of four marijuana cigarettes); United States v. One 1957 Oldsmobile Automobile, 256 F.2d 931, 933 (5th Cir. 1958) (13 grains marijuana); Associates Investment Co. v. United States, 220 F.2d 885, 886 (5th Cir. 1955) (one butt and one marijuana cigarette); United States v. One 1973 Dodge Van, 416 F. Sup. 43, 45 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. One 1957 Oldsmobile Automobile, Motor No. A227445, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Intervenorgreen1 sentence1984United States v. One 1976 Porsche 911S, 670 F.2d 810, 812 (9th Cir. 1979) (.226 grams marijuana); United States v. One 1975 Mercedes 280S, 590 F.2d 196, 198 (6th Cir. 1978) (butts of four marijuana cigarettes); United States v. One 1957 Oldsmobile Automobile, 256 F.2d 931, 933 (5th Cir. 1958) (13 grains marijuana); Associates Investment Co. v. United States, 220 F.2d 885, 886 (5th Cir. 1955) (one butt and one marijuana cigarette); United States v. One 1973 Dodge Van, 416 F. Sup. 43, 45 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. One 1975 Mercedes 280Sgreen1 sentence1984United States v. One 1976 Porsche 911S, 670 F.2d 810, 812 (9th Cir. 1979) (.226 grams marijuana); United States v. One 1975 Mercedes 280S, 590 F.2d 196, 198 (6th Cir. 1978) (butts of four marijuana cigarettes); United States v. One 1957 Oldsmobile Automobile, 256 F.2d 931, 933 (5th Cir. 1958) (13 grains marijuana); Associates Investment Co. v. United States, 220 F.2d 885, 886 (5th Cir. 1955) (one butt and one marijuana cigarette); United States v. One 1973 Dodge Van, 416 F. Sup. 43, 45 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. One 1976 Porsche 911Sgreen1 sentence1984United States v. One 1976 Porsche 911S, 670 F.2d 810, 812 (9th Cir. 1979) (.226 grams marijuana); United States v. One 1975 Mercedes 280S, 590 F.2d 196, 198 (6th Cir. 1978) (butts of four marijuana cigarettes); United States v. One 1957 Oldsmobile Automobile, 256 F.2d 931, 933 (5th Cir. 1958) (13 grains marijuana); Associates Investment Co. v. United States, 220 F.2d 885, 886 (5th Cir. 1955) (one butt and one marijuana cigarette); United States v. One 1973 Dodge Van, 416 F. Sup. 43, 45 (E.D. | 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 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2016The defendant’s narcotics conviction is not the subject of this appeal. 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. 2016The defendant’s narcotics conviction is not the subject of this appeal. 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Washington v. United States
green
1 sentence2002The defendant, James Meehan, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of three counts of possession of a narcotic substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a), 1 one count of larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 2 and 53a-123 (a) (3) 3 and three counts of perjury in violation of General Statutes § 53a-156 (a). 4 On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) the evidence admitted at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction of three counts of possession of a narcotic substance and three counts of perjury; (2) the trial c | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Bowen v. Peoples
green
1 sentence2002The defendant, James Meehan, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of three counts of possession of a narcotic substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a), 1 one count of larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 2 and 53a-123 (a) (3) 3 and three counts of perjury in violation of General Statutes § 53a-156 (a). 4 On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) the evidence admitted at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction of three counts of possession of a narcotic substance and three counts of perjury; (2) the trial c | 1 | 2002–2002 |
California v. Tyberg
green
1 sentence2002The defendant, James Meehan, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of three counts of possession of a narcotic substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a), 1 one count of larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 2 and 53a-123 (a) (3) 3 and three counts of perjury in violation of General Statutes § 53a-156 (a). 4 On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) the evidence admitted at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction of three counts of possession of a narcotic substance and three counts of perjury; (2) the trial c | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Whelan
green
2 sentences2002The defendant, James Meehan, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of three counts of possession of a narcotic substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a), 1 one count of larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 2 and 53a-123 (a) (3) 3 and three counts of perjury in violation of General Statutes § 53a-156 (a). 4 On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) the evidence admitted at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction of three counts of possession of a narcotic substance and three counts of perjury; (2) the trial c 2002The defendant, James Meehan, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of three counts of possession of a narcotic substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a), 1 one count of larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 2 and 53a-123 (a) (3) 3 and three counts of perjury in violation of General Statutes § 53a-156 (a). 4 On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) the evidence admitted at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction of three counts of possession of a narcotic substance and three counts of perjury; (2) the trial c | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Smart
green
2 sentences1999It is axiomatic that “the offense of the sale of a narcotic substance requires proof of a sale.” State v. Smart, 37 Conn. App. 360, 368 , 656 A.2d 677 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 914 , 659 A.2d 187 (1995). 1999It is axiomatic that “the offense of the sale of a narcotic substance requires proof of a sale.” State v. Smart, 37 Conn. App. 360, 368 , 656 A.2d 677 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 914 , 659 A.2d 187 (1995). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Smart
green
2 sentences1999It is axiomatic that “the offense of the sale of a narcotic substance requires proof of a sale.” State v. Smart, 37 Conn. App. 360, 368 , 656 A.2d 677 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 914 , 659 A.2d 187 (1995). 1999It is axiomatic that “the offense of the sale of a narcotic substance requires proof of a sale.” State v. Smart, 37 Conn. App. 360, 368 , 656 A.2d 677 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 914 , 659 A.2d 187 (1995). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.