7 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corporationgreen2 sentences1998Consequently, a party need not indicate its intent to invoke the spoliation rule in the pleadings." Id., 155-56. 1998Consequently, a party need not indicate its intent to invoke the spoliation rule in the pleadings." Id., 155-56 . | 1 | 2 |
Oliver v. Stimson Lumber Co.green2 sentences2006Holmes v. Amerex Rent-A-Car, 710 A.2d 846, 851 (D.C. 1998); see also Oliver v. Stimson Lumber Co., 297 Mont. 336, 350 , 993 P.2d 11 (1999) (same). 2006Holmes v. Amerex Rent-A-Car, 710 A.2d 846, 851 (D.C. 1998); see also Oliver v. Stimson Lumber Co., 297 Mont. 336, 350 , 993 P.2d 11 (1999) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Holmes v. Amerex Rent-A-Cargreen2 sentences2006Holmes v. Amerex Rent-A-Car, 710 A.2d 846, 851 (D.C.1998); see also Oliver v. Stimson Lumber Co., 297 Mont. 336, 350 , 993 P.2d 11 (1999) (same). 2006Holmes v. Amerex Rent-A-Car, 710 A.2d 846, 851 (D.C. 1998); see also Oliver v. Stimson Lumber Co., 297 Mont. 336, 350 , 993 P.2d 11 (1999) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, supra, 18 Cal.4th at 15 , 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 248 , 954 P.2d 511 (costs imposed by tort of intentional spoliation of evidence outweigh benefits). 2006See, e.g., Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, supra, 18 Cal.4th at 15 , 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 248 , 954 P.2d 511 (costs imposed by tort of intentional spoliation of evidence outweigh benefits). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp.
green
2 sentences2020The trial court, applying the test set forth in Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769 , 777–79, 675 A.2d 829 (1996), concluded that a spoliation instruction was warranted and, over the defendants’ objection, provided such an instruction to the jury at the end of the trial. 2020The trial court, applying the test set forth in Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769 , 777–79, 675 A.2d 829 (1996), concluded that a spoliation instruction was warranted and, over the defendants’ objection, provided such an instruction to the jury at the end of the trial. | 3 | 2017–2020 |
State v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2020As this court has previously noted, a trial court acts well within its broad discretion when it restricts the scope of an argument ‘‘to prevent comment on facts that are not properly in evidence . . . .’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Water Pollu- tion Control Authority, 278 Conn. 692, 713 , 900 A.2d 498 (2006); cf. State v. Weatherspoon, 332 Conn. 531, 551 , 212 A.3d 208 (2019) (‘‘[w]hile the privilege of coun- sel in addressing the jury should not be too closely narrowed or unduly hampered, it must never be used as a license to state, or to comment [on], or to suggest an i 2020As this court has previously noted, a trial court acts well within its broad discretion when it restricts the scope of an argument ‘‘to prevent comment on facts that are not properly in evidence . . . .’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Water Pollu- tion Control Authority, 278 Conn. 692, 713 , 900 A.2d 498 (2006); cf. State v. Weatherspoon, 332 Conn. 531, 551 , 212 A.3d 208 (2019) (‘‘[w]hile the privilege of coun- sel in addressing the jury should not be too closely narrowed or unduly hampered, it must never be used as a license to state, or to comment [on], or to suggest an i | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Jackson v. Water Pollution Control Authority
green
2 sentences2020As this court has previously noted, a trial court acts well within its broad discretion when it restricts the scope of an argument ‘‘to prevent comment on facts that are not properly in evidence . . . .’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Water Pollu- tion Control Authority, 278 Conn. 692, 713 , 900 A.2d 498 (2006); cf. State v. Weatherspoon, 332 Conn. 531, 551 , 212 A.3d 208 (2019) (‘‘[w]hile the privilege of coun- sel in addressing the jury should not be too closely narrowed or unduly hampered, it must never be used as a license to state, or to comment [on], or to suggest an i 2020As this court has previously noted, a trial court acts well within its broad discretion when it restricts the scope of an argument ‘‘to prevent comment on facts that are not properly in evidence . . . .’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Water Pollu- tion Control Authority, 278 Conn. 692, 713 , 900 A.2d 498 (2006); cf. State v. Weatherspoon, 332 Conn. 531, 551 , 212 A.3d 208 (2019) (‘‘[w]hile the privilege of coun- sel in addressing the jury should not be too closely narrowed or unduly hampered, it must never be used as a license to state, or to comment [on], or to suggest an i | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2020As this court has previously noted, a trial court acts well within its broad discretion when it restricts the scope of an argument ‘‘to prevent comment on facts that are not properly in evidence . . . .’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Water Pollu- tion Control Authority, 278 Conn. 692, 713 , 900 A.2d 498 (2006); cf. State v. Weatherspoon, 332 Conn. 531, 551 , 212 A.3d 208 (2019) (‘‘[w]hile the privilege of coun- sel in addressing the jury should not be too closely narrowed or unduly hampered, it must never be used as a license to state, or to comment [on], or to suggest an i 2020As this court has previously noted, a trial court acts well within its broad discretion when it restricts the scope of an argument ‘‘to prevent comment on facts that are not properly in evidence . . . .’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Water Pollu- tion Control Authority, 278 Conn. 692, 713 , 900 A.2d 498 (2006); cf. State v. Weatherspoon, 332 Conn. 531, 551 , 212 A.3d 208 (2019) (‘‘[w]hile the privilege of coun- sel in addressing the jury should not be too closely narrowed or unduly hampered, it must never be used as a license to state, or to comment [on], or to suggest an i | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Weatherspoon
green
2 sentences2020As this court has previously noted, a trial court acts well within its broad discretion when it restricts the scope of an argument ‘‘to prevent comment on facts that are not properly in evidence . . . .’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Water Pollu- tion Control Authority, 278 Conn. 692, 713 , 900 A.2d 498 (2006); cf. State v. Weatherspoon, 332 Conn. 531, 551 , 212 A.3d 208 (2019) (‘‘[w]hile the privilege of coun- sel in addressing the jury should not be too closely narrowed or unduly hampered, it must never be used as a license to state, or to comment [on], or to suggest an i 2020As this court has previously noted, a trial court acts well within its broad discretion when it restricts the scope of an argument ‘‘to prevent comment on facts that are not properly in evidence . . . .’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Water Pollu- tion Control Authority, 278 Conn. 692, 713 , 900 A.2d 498 (2006); cf. State v. Weatherspoon, 332 Conn. 531, 551 , 212 A.3d 208 (2019) (‘‘[w]hile the privilege of coun- sel in addressing the jury should not be too closely narrowed or unduly hampered, it must never be used as a license to state, or to comment [on], or to suggest an i | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Asherman
green
2 sentences2017The court determined that the spoliation test prescribed in State v. Asherman , supra, 193 Conn. 695 , 478 A.2d 227 , governed this case and that the plaintiff could not prevail under that test. 2017The court determined that the spoliation test prescribed in State v. Asherman , supra, 193 Conn. 695 , 478 A.2d 227 , governed this case and that the plaintiff could not prevail under that test. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Morales
green
2 sentences2017The Asherman balancing test is used to determine "whether the failure of the police to preserve potentially useful evidence had deprived a criminal defendant of due process of law under ... [our] state constitution" and requires the following factors to be weighed: "the materiality of the missing evidence, the likelihood of mistaken interpretation of it by witnesses or the jury, the reason for its nonavailability to the defense and the prejudice to the defendant caused by the unavailability of the evidence." (Citations omitted.) State v. Morales , 232 Conn. 707 , 719-20, 657 A.2d 585 (1995). 2017The Asherman balancing test is used to determine "whether the failure of the police to preserve potentially useful evidence had deprived a criminal defendant of due process of law under ... [our] state constitution" and requires the following factors to be weighed: "the materiality of the missing evidence, the likelihood of mistaken interpretation of it by witnesses or the jury, the reason for its nonavailability to the defense and the prejudice to the defendant caused by the unavailability of the evidence." (Citations omitted.) State v. Morales , 232 Conn. 707 , 719-20, 657 A.2d 585 (1995). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Golding
green
2 sentences2013We note that the defendant did not seek review of his unpreserved claim pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), or the plain error doctrine set forth in Practice Book § 60-5. 2013We note that the defendant did not seek review of his unpreserved claim pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), or the plain error doctrine set forth in Practice Book § 60-5. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Petrik v. Monarch Printing Corp.
green
2 sentences2006Id., at 250-51 , 103 Ill.Dec. 774 , 501 N.E.2d 1312 . 2006Id., at 250-51 , 103 Ill.Dec. 774 , 501 N.E.2d 1312 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.