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.
51 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hinesgreen2 sentences2005A hearsay statement that does not fall within one of the traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule nevertheless may be admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule provided that the proponent’s use of the statement is reasonably necessary and the statement itself is ‘supported by equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability that are essential to other evidence admitted under traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule.’ Conn. Code Evid. § 8-9; accord State v. Hines, 243 Conn. 796, 809 , 709 A.2d 522 (1998). 2005A hearsay statement that does not fall within one of the traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule nevertheless may be admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule provided that the proponent’s use of the statement is reasonably necessary and the statement itself is ‘supported by equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability that are essential to other evidence admitted under traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule.’ Conn. Code Evid. § 8-9; accord State v. Hines, 243 Conn. 796, 809 , 709 A.2d 522 (1998). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Aaron L.green2 sentences2009A hearsay statement that does not fall within one of the traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule nevertheless may be admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule provided that the proponent’s use of the *384 statement is reasonably necessary and the statement itself is supported by equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability that are essential to other evidence admitted under traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Aaron L., 272 Conn. 798, 812 , 865 A.2d 1135 (2005); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 2009A hearsay statement that does not fall within one of the traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule nevertheless may be admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule provided that the proponent’s use of the *384 statement is reasonably necessary and the statement itself is supported by equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability that are essential to other evidence admitted under traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Aaron L., 272 Conn. 798, 812 , 865 A.2d 1135 (2005); see also Conn. Code Evid. § | 2 | 6 |
Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc.green2 sentences2015The list is neither determina- tive nor rigid.’’ Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Com- munity Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850 , 862–63, 797 A.2d 1146 (disagreeing with defendants that court was required to take account of lack of corroborating physi- cal evidence where alleged sexual assault involved improper touching), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 A.2d 212 (2002). 2010Consistent with this rationale, the Appellate Court has concluded that the residual exception to the hearsay rule, while generally invoked “only in exceptional circumstances ... is particularly well suited for the admission of statements by victims of child abuse and has been used in federal and state courts for this purpose.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn. App. 530, 540 , 568 A.2d 1058 , cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805 , 574 A.2d 220 (1990); accord Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850, 854 , 797 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 | 2 | 3 |
Fromer v. Commissioner of Environmental Protectiongreen2 sentences2015The list is neither determina- tive nor rigid.’’ Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Com- munity Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850 , 862–63, 797 A.2d 1146 (disagreeing with defendants that court was required to take account of lack of corroborating physi- cal evidence where alleged sexual assault involved improper touching), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 A.2d 212 (2002). 2010Consistent with this rationale, the Appellate Court has concluded that the residual exception to the hearsay rule, while generally invoked “only in exceptional circumstances ... is particularly well suited for the admission of statements by victims of child abuse and has been used in federal and state courts for this purpose.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn. App. 530, 540 , 568 A.2d 1058 , cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805 , 574 A.2d 220 (1990); accord Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850, 854 , 797 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 | 2 | 3 |
State v. Skakelgreen2 sentences2015A hearsay statement that does not fall within one of the traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule nevertheless may be admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule provided that [1] the pro- ponent’s use of the statement is reasonably necessary and [2] the statement itself is supported by equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability that are essential to other evidence admitted under traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Tayler F., 296 Conn. 524, 536 , 995 A.2d 611 (2010); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 8-9. ‘‘We previo 2015A hearsay statement that does not fall within one of the traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule nevertheless may be admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule provided that [1] the pro- ponent’s use of the statement is reasonably necessary and [2] the statement itself is supported by equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability that are essential to other evidence admitted under traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Tayler F., 296 Conn. 524, 536 , 995 A.2d 611 (2010); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 8-9. ‘‘We previo | 2 | 3 |
Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc.green2 sentences2010Consistent with this rationale, the Appellate Court has concluded that the residual exception to the hearsay rule, while generally invoked “only in exceptional circumstances ... is particularly well suited for the admission of statements by victims of child abuse and has been used in federal and state courts for this purpose.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn. App. 530, 540 , 568 A.2d 1058 , cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805 , 574 A.2d 220 (1990); accord Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850, 854 , 797 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 2010Consistent with this rationale, the Appellate Court has concluded that the residual exception to the hearsay rule, while generally invoked “only in exceptional circumstances ... is particularly well suited for the admission of statements by victims of child abuse and has been used in federal and state courts for this purpose.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn. App. 530, 540 , 568 A.2d 1058 , cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805 , 574 A.2d 220 (1990); accord Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850, 854 , 797 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 | 2 | 3 |
State v. Herediagreen2 sentences2022As this court and our Supreme Court have iterated, ‘‘[t]he residual hearsay [exception] [should be] applied in the rarest of cases . . . .’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bennett, supra, 762; see also State v. Heredia, 139 Conn. App. 319, 331 , 55 A.3d 598 (2012), cert. denied, 307 Conn. 952 , 58 A.3d 975 (2013). ‘‘[T]he [residual] exception is not to be treated as a broad license to admit hearsay inadmissible under other exceptions, and is to be used very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.’’ (Emphasis added; footnote omitted.) State v. Dollinger, 20 C 2022As this court and our Supreme Court have iterated, ‘‘[t]he residual hearsay [exception] [should be] applied in the rarest of cases . . . .’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bennett, supra, 762; see also State v. Heredia, 139 Conn. App. 319, 331 , 55 A.3d 598 (2012), cert. denied, 307 Conn. 952 , 58 A.3d 975 (2013). ‘‘[T]he [residual] exception is not to be treated as a broad license to admit hearsay inadmissible under other exceptions, and is to be used very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.’’ (Emphasis added; footnote omitted.) State v. Dollinger, 20 C | 2 | 2 |
State v. Shehadehgreen2 sentences2017See State v. Shehadeh , 52 Conn. App. 46 , 50, 725 A.2d 394 (1999) (abuse of discretion and showing of substantial prejudice or injustice). 2017See State v. Shehadeh , 52 Conn. App. 46 , 50, 725 A.2d 394 (1999) (abuse of discretion and showing of substantial prejudice or injustice). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Michael Medicogreen2 sentences2002United States v. Medico, 557 F.2d 309, 315 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 986 , 98 S. Ct. 614 , 54 L. 1990United States v. Medico, 557 F.2d 309, 315 (2d Cir. 1977). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2022Section 8-9 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, which sets forth the residual exception to the hearsay rule, ‘‘allows a trial court to admit hearsay evidence not admissible under any of the established [hearsay] exceptions’’; (internal quotation marks omit- ted) State v. Bennett, 324 Conn. 744, 762 , 155 A.3d 188 (2017); but only ‘‘if the court determines that (1) there is a reasonable necessity for the admission of the state- ment, and (2) the statement is supported by equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability that are essential to other evidence admitted under traditional exc 2022Section 8-9 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, which sets forth the residual exception to the hearsay rule, ‘‘allows a trial court to admit hearsay evidence not admissible under any of the established [hearsay] exceptions’’; (internal quotation marks omit- ted) State v. Bennett, 324 Conn. 744, 762 , 155 A.3d 188 (2017); but only ‘‘if the court determines that (1) there is a reasonable necessity for the admission of the state- ment, and (2) the statement is supported by equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability that are essential to other evidence admitted under traditional exc | 1 | 4 |
State v. Sharpegreen2 sentences1999Our Supreme Court established the test for whether evidence is admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule in State v. Sharpe, 195 Conn. 651, 664 , 491 A.2d 345 (1985). 1999Our Supreme Court established the test for whether evidence is admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule in State v. Sharpe, 195 Conn. 651, 664 , 491 A.2d 345 (1985). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences2018"A court's conclusion as to whether certain hearsay statements bear the requisite indicia of *76 trustworthiness and reliability necessary for admission under the residual exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Myers , 126 Conn. App. 239 , 247, 11 A.3d 1100 , cert. denied, 300 Conn. 923 , 14 A.3d 1006 (2011). 2017See State v. Andrews , supra, 313 Conn. at 276 , 96 A.3d 1199 ; see also State v. Myers , 126 Conn.App. 239 , 247, 11 A.3d 1100 ("[a] court's conclusion as to whether certain hearsay statements bear the requisite indicia of trustworthiness and reliability necessary for admission under the residual exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 923 , 14 A.3d 1006 (2011). | 1 | 3 |
Atkinson v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen2 sentences2018"A court's conclusion as to whether certain hearsay statements bear the requisite indicia of *76 trustworthiness and reliability necessary for admission under the residual exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Myers , 126 Conn. App. 239 , 247, 11 A.3d 1100 , cert. denied, 300 Conn. 923 , 14 A.3d 1006 (2011). 2017See State v. Andrews , supra, 313 Conn. at 276 , 96 A.3d 1199 ; see also State v. Myers , 126 Conn.App. 239 , 247, 11 A.3d 1100 ("[a] court's conclusion as to whether certain hearsay statements bear the requisite indicia of trustworthiness and reliability necessary for admission under the residual exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 923 , 14 A.3d 1006 (2011). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences2018"A court's conclusion as to whether certain hearsay statements bear the requisite indicia of *76 trustworthiness and reliability necessary for admission under the residual exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Myers , 126 Conn. App. 239 , 247, 11 A.3d 1100 , cert. denied, 300 Conn. 923 , 14 A.3d 1006 (2011). 2018"A court's conclusion as to whether certain hearsay statements bear the requisite indicia of *76 trustworthiness and reliability necessary for admission under the residual exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Myers , 126 Conn. App. 239 , 247, 11 A.3d 1100 , cert. denied, 300 Conn. 923 , 14 A.3d 1006 (2011). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2003The trial court overruled the defendant’s objection and allowed the state’s attorney to introduce those statements through the testimony of Betterini under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. ‘ ‘Hearsay within hearsay is admissible only if each part of the combined statements is independently admissible under a hearsay exception.” Conn. CodeEvid. § 8-7; see also State v. Lewis, 245 Conn. 779, 802 , 717 A.2d 1140 (1998) (“[w]hen a statement is offered that contains hearsay within hearsay, each level of hearsay must itself be supported by an exception to the hearsay rule in order for tha 2003The trial court overruled the defendant’s objection and allowed the state’s attorney to introduce those statements through the testimony of Betterini under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. ‘ ‘Hearsay within hearsay is admissible only if each part of the combined statements is independently admissible under a hearsay exception.” Conn. CodeEvid. § 8-7; see also State v. Lewis, 245 Conn. 779, 802 , 717 A.2d 1140 (1998) (“[w]hen a statement is offered that contains hearsay within hearsay, each level of hearsay must itself be supported by an exception to the hearsay rule in order for tha | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Whelangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Washington v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| California v. Tyberggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bowen v. Peoplesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hartford/Windsor Healthcare Properties, LLC v. City of Hartfordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Lauren R.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sauciergreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Keenan Pricegreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Eric Washington, United States of America v. Eric Washingtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Ferlin K. Doriangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Town of Preston v. Connecticut Siting Council
green
2 sentences2021The residual exception to the hearsay rule ‘‘admits into evidence statements that are technically hearsay and which do not fit within any traditional exception.’’ State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn. App. 530, 539 , 568 A.2d 1058 , cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805 , 574 A.2d 220 (1990). 2010Consistent with this rationale, the Appellate Court has concluded that the residual exception to the hearsay rule, while generally invoked “only in exceptional circumstances ... is particularly well suited for the admission of statements by victims of child abuse and has been used in federal and state courts for this purpose.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn. App. 530, 540 , 568 A.2d 1058 , cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805 , 574 A.2d 220 (1990); accord Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850, 854 , 797 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 | 6 | 2002–2022 |
State v. Dollinger
green
2 sentences2021The residual exception to the hearsay rule ‘‘admits into evidence statements that are technically hearsay and which do not fit within any traditional exception.’’ State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn. App. 530, 539 , 568 A.2d 1058 , cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805 , 574 A.2d 220 (1990). 2010Consistent with this rationale, the Appellate Court has concluded that the residual exception to the hearsay rule, while generally invoked “only in exceptional circumstances ... is particularly well suited for the admission of statements by victims of child abuse and has been used in federal and state courts for this purpose.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn. App. 530, 540 , 568 A.2d 1058 , cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805 , 574 A.2d 220 (1990); accord Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Community Action, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 850, 854 , 797 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 906 , 804 | 6 | 2002–2022 |
State v. Dollinger
green
2 sentences2021The residual exception to the hearsay rule ‘‘admits into evidence statements that are technically hearsay and which do not fit within any traditional exception.’’ State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn. App. 530, 539 , 568 A.2d 1058 , cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805 , 574 A.2d 220 (1990). 2021The residual exception to the hearsay rule ‘‘admits into evidence statements that are technically hearsay and which do not fit within any traditional exception.’’ State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn. App. 530, 539 , 568 A.2d 1058 , cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805 , 574 A.2d 220 (1990). | 6 | 2002–2022 |
State v. Saucier
green
2 sentences2010In applying an abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the trial court properly could have determined that Bryant’s statements would be admissible under the residual hearsay exception, I am mindful of this court’s statement in State v. Saucier, supra, 283 Conn. 207 , that “the question of whether the trial court properly could have admitted [a hearsay] statement under the residual exception if the admission of that type of statement eocrpressly was barred under another hearsay exception would present a question of law over which the appellate courts exercise plenary review.” (Emphasi 2008By contrast, the question of whether the trial court properly could have admitted that statement under the residual exception if the admission of that type of statement expressly was barred under another hearsay exception would present a question of law over which the appellate courts exercise plenary review.” (Citations omitted.) Id., 218-19 . | 4 | 2008–2010 |
In Re Tayler F.
green
2 sentences2022Nevertheless, we do not reach the respondent father’s claim regard- ing the reliable and trustworthy prong in light of our conclusion that the trial court incorrectly determined that the admission of the hearsay state- ments was ‘‘reasonably necessary.’’ 21 We note that § 35a-23 of our rules of practice was adopted in response to In re Taylor F., supra, 296 Conn. 524 , and provides procedures that parties and the court must follow whenever a party ‘‘seeks the admission of a hearsay statement of a child pursuant to the residual exception to the hearsay rule based upon psychological unavailabili 2021Under the abuse of discretion standard, [w]e [must] make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Filippelli v. Saint Mary’s Hospital, 319 Conn. 113 , 119, 124 A.3d 501 (2015). ‘‘A court’s conclusion as to whether certain hearsay state- ments bear the requisite indicia of trustworthiness and reliability necessary for admission under the residual exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.’’ State v. Faison, 112 Conn. App. | 3 | 2015–2022 |
State v. Faison
green
2 sentences2021Under the abuse of discretion standard, [w]e [must] make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Filippelli v. Saint Mary’s Hospital, 319 Conn. 113 , 119, 124 A.3d 501 (2015). ‘‘A court’s conclusion as to whether certain hearsay state- ments bear the requisite indicia of trustworthiness and reliability necessary for admission under the residual exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.’’ State v. Faison, 112 Conn. App. 2021Under the abuse of discretion standard, [w]e [must] make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Filippelli v. Saint Mary’s Hospital, 319 Conn. 113 , 119, 124 A.3d 501 (2015). ‘‘A court’s conclusion as to whether certain hearsay state- ments bear the requisite indicia of trustworthiness and reliability necessary for admission under the residual exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.’’ State v. Faison, 112 Conn. App. | 3 | 2011–2021 |
State v. Faison
green
2 sentences2021Under the abuse of discretion standard, [w]e [must] make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Filippelli v. Saint Mary’s Hospital, 319 Conn. 113 , 119, 124 A.3d 501 (2015). ‘‘A court’s conclusion as to whether certain hearsay state- ments bear the requisite indicia of trustworthiness and reliability necessary for admission under the residual exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.’’ State v. Faison, 112 Conn. App. 2021Under the abuse of discretion standard, [w]e [must] make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Filippelli v. Saint Mary’s Hospital, 319 Conn. 113 , 119, 124 A.3d 501 (2015). ‘‘A court’s conclusion as to whether certain hearsay state- ments bear the requisite indicia of trustworthiness and reliability necessary for admission under the residual exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.’’ State v. Faison, 112 Conn. App. | 3 | 2011–2021 |
State v. Merriam
green
2 sentences2022To identify the circumstances relevant to the analysis, we find instruc- tive this court’s decision in State v. Merriam, supra, 264 Conn. 617 , which applied Wright in considering whether the trial court properly admitted, under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, the out-of-court statements of a three year old complainant alleging that the defendant in that case had sexually assaulted her. 2010“A statement that is not admissible under any of the [hearsay] exceptions [enumerated in the Connecticut Code of Evidence] is admissible if the court determines that (1) there is a reasonable necessity for the admission of the statement, and (2) the statement is supported by equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability that are essential to other evidence admitted under traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Merriam, 264 Conn. 617 , 633 n.22, 835 A.2d 895 (2003), quoting Conn. Code Evid. § 8-9. | 2 | 2010–2022 |
In re Jason S.
green
2 sentences1990The court in In re Jason S., 9 Conn. App. 98 , 516 A.2d 1352 (1987), found that because the child was available to testify, there was no necessity for admitting the abused child’s hearsay statements under the residual exception. 1990The court in In re Jason S., 9 Conn. App. 98 , 516 A.2d 1352 (1987), found that because the child was available to testify, there was no necessity for admitting the abused child’s hearsay statements under the residual exception. | 2 | 1990–2008 |
State v. Aaron L.
green
2 sentences2008State v. Aaron L., 79 Conn.App. 397, 420 , 830 A.2d 776 (2003), aff'd, 272 Conn. 798 , 865 A.2d 1135 (2005), is vastly different because the court allowed under the residual exception *192 hearsay statements made by the victim when she was two years old that she could not remember at the time of trial ten years later. 2008State v. Aaron L., 79 Conn.App. 397, 420 , 830 A.2d 776 (2003), aff'd, 272 Conn. 798 , 865 A.2d 1135 (2005), is vastly different because the court allowed under the residual exception *192 hearsay statements made by the victim when she was two years old that she could not remember at the time of trial ten years later. | 2 | 2005–2008 |
In Re Tayler F.
green
2 sentences2008The petition by the respondent mother for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 111 Conn. App. 28 (AC 28345), is granted, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court properly admitted statements under the residual exception to the hearsay rule?” 2008The petition by the respondent mother for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 111 Conn.App. 28 , 958 A.2d 170 (2008), is granted, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court properly admitted statements under the residual exception to the hearsay rule?" The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18280. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Bischoff
green
1 sentence2025A With that definition in mind, I turn to the question of whether the residual clause in § 53a-3 (24) is ambiguous. ‘‘The test to determine ambiguity is whether the statute, when read in context, is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bischoff, 337 Conn. 739, 746 , 258 A.3d 14 (2021). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness, LLC
green
1 sentence2025It is well settled that a court ‘‘may consider hypotheti- cal scenarios beyond the facts of the case before [it] in determining whether a construction of the plain lan- guage of a statute will lead to an absurd result.’’ Com- mission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness, LLC, 342 Conn. 25 , 39 n.11, 268 A.3d 630 (2022). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. King
green
1 sentence2025In discerning the meaning of the phrase ‘‘essential element’’ in § 53a-3 (24), it is appropriate to begin with our recent decision in State v. King, 346 Conn. 238 , 288 A.3d 995 (2023). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Establishing ambiguity for purposes of § 1- 2z is a ‘‘relatively low’’ bar; Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc., 300 Conn. 1, 15 , 12 A.3d 865 (2011); because it requires only that the multiple proffered read- ings of the statute be plausible. 2025Establishing ambiguity for purposes of § 1- 2z is a ‘‘relatively low’’ bar; Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc., 300 Conn. 1, 15 , 12 A.3d 865 (2011); because it requires only that the multiple proffered read- ings of the statute be plausible. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Abernathy neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Franco v. East Shore Development, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Bethlehem Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Hodges v. Comm'r of Corr. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Carey green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Carey green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Jenkins green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Corbett v. Commissioner of Correction green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Atkins green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Department of Public Utility Control green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| North Carolina v. Alford green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Jarzbek green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Watson v. Commissioner of Correction green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Jovanovic v. United States green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Jensen v. Satran green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Crawford v. Washington green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Torelli green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Haili green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Doe v. Christoforo neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Cortes green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Gonzalez green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Brown v. Bright Clouds Ministries, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Doe v. Christoforo green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Brown v. Bright Clouds Ministries, Inc. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.