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.
6 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1935–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fisk v. Reddinggreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Cookish v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 337 Conn. 361 (concluding, with respect to unpreserved issue not included in petition for certification to appeal, that ‘‘the [habeas] court could have resolve[d] the [issue in a different manner] and, therefore, abused its discretion in denying the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal’’ (internal quota- tion marks omitted)); Howard v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 217 Conn. App. 126 (concluding that unpreserved claim of procedural error in uncertified appeal ‘‘involve[d] issues that are debatable among jurists of reaso | 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. Boles
green
1 sentence2002The law considers the chain of legal causation unbroken and holds the defendant criminally responsible.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 541 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Nielsen
green
1 sentence2001In adopting the reasoning of the Appellate Court in Lonergan , we concluded that the Appellate Court had engaged in an accurate analysis of federal double jeopardy precedent, including Illinois v. Vitale, supra, 447 U.S. 410 ; Brown v. Ohio, supra, 432 U.S. 161 ; Harris v. Oklahoma, supra, 433 U.S. 682 ; Ashe v. Swenson, supra, 397 U.S. 436 ; and In re Nielsen, supra, 131 U.S. 176 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Harris v. Oklahoma
green
1 sentence2001In adopting the reasoning of the Appellate Court in Lonergan , we concluded that the Appellate Court had engaged in an accurate analysis of federal double jeopardy precedent, including Illinois v. Vitale, supra, 447 U.S. 410 ; Brown v. Ohio, supra, 432 U.S. 161 ; Harris v. Oklahoma, supra, 433 U.S. 682 ; Ashe v. Swenson, supra, 397 U.S. 436 ; and In re Nielsen, supra, 131 U.S. 176 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Brown v. Ohio
green
1 sentence2001In adopting the reasoning of the Appellate Court in Lonergan , we concluded that the Appellate Court had engaged in an accurate analysis of federal double jeopardy precedent, including Illinois v. Vitale, supra, 447 U.S. 410 ; Brown v. Ohio, supra, 432 U.S. 161 ; Harris v. Oklahoma, supra, 433 U.S. 682 ; Ashe v. Swenson, supra, 397 U.S. 436 ; and In re Nielsen, supra, 131 U.S. 176 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Ashe v. Swenson
green
1 sentence2001In adopting the reasoning of the Appellate Court in Lonergan , we concluded that the Appellate Court had engaged in an accurate analysis of federal double jeopardy precedent, including Illinois v. Vitale, supra, 447 U.S. 410 ; Brown v. Ohio, supra, 432 U.S. 161 ; Harris v. Oklahoma, supra, 433 U.S. 682 ; Ashe v. Swenson, supra, 397 U.S. 436 ; and In re Nielsen, supra, 131 U.S. 176 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Illinois v. Vitale
green
1 sentence2001In adopting the reasoning of the Appellate Court in Lonergan , we concluded that the Appellate Court had engaged in an accurate analysis of federal double jeopardy precedent, including Illinois v. Vitale, supra, 447 U.S. 410 ; Brown v. Ohio, supra, 432 U.S. 161 ; Harris v. Oklahoma, supra, 433 U.S. 682 ; Ashe v. Swenson, supra, 397 U.S. 436 ; and In re Nielsen, supra, 131 U.S. 176 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Javit v. Marshall's, Inc.
green
2 sentences1996The more accurate rule, however, is that “anew ten day period may be created by the filing of an amended pleading, provided that the amended pleading introduces a new issue of fact into the case.” (Emphasis added.) Javit v. Marshall’s, Inc., 40 Conn. App. 261, 266 , 670 A.2d 886 (1996). 1996The more accurate rule, however, is that “anew ten day period may be created by the filing of an amended pleading, provided that the amended pleading introduces a new issue of fact into the case.” (Emphasis added.) Javit v. Marshall’s, Inc., 40 Conn. App. 261, 266 , 670 A.2d 886 (1996). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Case v. Zeiff
neutral
1 sentence1973The plaintiffs claimed that the irreparable injury which they would suffer is a monetary loss which is irreparable since it “is not susceptible of determination to its full extent and is not estimable by .an accurate standard but is estimable only by conjecture.” Case v. Zeiff, 10 Conn. Sup. 530, 532 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Levy
green
2 sentences1935Where the defendant in a liquor case asked the court to charge that it was the duty of the state experts to make a full and accurate analysis, we said it was not bound to give this charge and added: “The court did charge the jury that they were not bound to accept the evidence of the State’s chemists as accurate, saying: ‘the expert judgment is never a substitution for the judgment of the jury.’ It also correctly pointed out that whether the beer in question contained more than one-half of one per cent by volume of alcohol, was a question for them to determine from all the evidence in the case 1935Where the defendant in a liquor case asked the court to charge that it was the duty of the state experts to make a full and accurate analysis, we said it was not bound to give this charge and added: “The court did charge the jury that they were not bound to accept the evidence of the State’s chemists as accurate, saying: ‘the expert judgment is never a substitution for the judgment of the jury.’ It also correctly pointed out that whether the beer in question contained more than one-half of one per cent by volume of alcohol, was a question for them to determine from all the evidence in the case | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.