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 1976–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Steckel v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Ed. 2d 413 (1997); State v. Hoey, 77 Haw. 17, 36 , 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis; see, e.g., Steckel v. State, 711 A.2d 5 , 10–11 (Del. 1998) (following clarification approach); Downey v. State, 144 So. 3d 146, 151 (Miss. 2014) (same); or both; see, e.g., State v. Chew, 150 N.J. 30, 63 , 695 A.2d 1301 (1997) (‘‘[g]iven the narrow balance for the Davis majority’s analysis, we believe it prudent to continue to apply our [stop and clarify] precedent’’). 2019A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis ; see, e.g., State v. Owen , 696 So.2d 715 , 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 , 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997) ; State v. Hoey , 77 Haw. 17 , 36, 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis ; see, e.g., Steckel v. State , 711 A.2d 5 , 10-11 (Del. 1998) (following **351 clarification approach); Downey v. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Chewgreen2 sentences2019A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis ; see, e.g., State v. Owen , 696 So.2d 715 , 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 , 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997) ; State v. Hoey , 77 Haw. 17 , 36, 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis ; see, e.g., Steckel v. State , 711 A.2d 5 , 10-11 (Del. 1998) (following **351 clarification approach); Downey v. 2019A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis ; see, e.g., State v. Owen , 696 So.2d 715 , 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 , 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997) ; State v. Hoey , 77 Haw. 17 , 36, 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis ; see, e.g., Steckel v. State , 711 A.2d 5 , 10-11 (Del. 1998) (following **351 clarification approach); Downey v. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Andrewsgreen2 sentences1982State v. Andrews, 108 Conn. 209, 215 [ 142 A. 840 (1928)]. 1982State v. Andrews, 108 Conn. 209, 215 [ 142 A. 840 (1928)]. | 1 | 4 |
Downey v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Ed. 2d 413 (1997); State v. Hoey, 77 Haw. 17, 36 , 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis; see, e.g., Steckel v. State, 711 A.2d 5 , 10–11 (Del. 1998) (following clarification approach); Downey v. State, 144 So. 3d 146, 151 (Miss. 2014) (same); or both; see, e.g., State v. Chew, 150 N.J. 30, 63 , 695 A.2d 1301 (1997) (‘‘[g]iven the narrow balance for the Davis majority’s analysis, we believe it prudent to continue to apply our [stop and clarify] precedent’’). 2019A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis ; see, e.g., State v. Owen , 696 So.2d 715 , 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 , 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997) ; State v. Hoey , 77 Haw. 17 , 36, 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis ; see, e.g., Steckel v. State , 711 A.2d 5 , 10-11 (Del. 1998) (following **351 clarification approach); Downey v. | 1 | 2 |
Ayala v. New Yorkgreen1 sentence2019A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis ; see, e.g., State v. Owen , 696 So.2d 715 , 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 , 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997) ; State v. Hoey , 77 Haw. 17 , 36, 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis ; see, e.g., Steckel v. State , 711 A.2d 5 , 10-11 (Del. 1998) (following **351 clarification approach); Downey v. | 1 | 1 |
Tyler v. United States District Court for the District of Nebraskagreen1 sentence2019A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis ; see, e.g., State v. Owen , 696 So.2d 715 , 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 , 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997) ; State v. Hoey , 77 Haw. 17 , 36, 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis ; see, e.g., Steckel v. State , 711 A.2d 5 , 10-11 (Del. 1998) (following **351 clarification approach); Downey v. | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Michigangreen1 sentence2019A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis ; see, e.g., State v. Owen , 696 So.2d 715 , 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 , 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997) ; State v. Hoey , 77 Haw. 17 , 36, 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis ; see, e.g., Steckel v. State , 711 A.2d 5 , 10-11 (Del. 1998) (following **351 clarification approach); Downey v. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Owengreen1 sentence2019A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis ; see, e.g., State v. Owen , 696 So.2d 715 , 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 , 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997) ; State v. Hoey , 77 Haw. 17 , 36, 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis ; see, e.g., Steckel v. State , 711 A.2d 5 , 10-11 (Del. 1998) (following **351 clarification approach); Downey v. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hoey
green
2 sentences2019A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis ; see, e.g., State v. Owen , 696 So.2d 715 , 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 , 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997) ; State v. Hoey , 77 Haw. 17 , 36, 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis ; see, e.g., Steckel v. State , 711 A.2d 5 , 10-11 (Del. 1998) (following **351 clarification approach); Downey v. 2019A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis ; see, e.g., State v. Owen , 696 So.2d 715 , 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 , 118 S.Ct. 574 , 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997) ; State v. Hoey , 77 Haw. 17 , 36, 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis ; see, e.g., Steckel v. State , 711 A.2d 5 , 10-11 (Del. 1998) (following **351 clarification approach); Downey v. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences2010Second, the proper use of this expert testimony calls into question the soundness of the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), by which trial courts determine whether an identification can be deemed reliable despite a finding of unnecessary suggestiveness. 2010Second, the proper use of this expert testimony calls into question the soundness of the test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 , 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), by which trial courts determine whether an identification can be deemed reliable despite a finding of unnecessary suggestiveness. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.