built-in presumption in Connecticut

2011We merely note that one necessary cost accompanying a precedential judicial system such as ours, which "has a built-in presumption of retroactivity"; Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 642 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984); is that there will be times when courts will be forced to disturb the settled soils of justice. [25] Indeed, one of our primary concerns about Justice Katz' analysis is that she appears to undervalue the importance of the state's reliance interest in cases such as Policano v. Herbert, supra, 7 N.Y.3d at 588 , 825 N.Y.S.2d 678 , 859 N.E.2d 484 , Powell v. State, supra, 57

2011We merely note that one necessary cost accompanying a precedential judicial system such as ours, which "has a built-in presumption of retroactivity"; Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 642 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984); is that there will be times when courts will be forced to disturb the settled soils of justice. [25] Indeed, one of our primary concerns about Justice Katz' analysis is that she appears to undervalue the importance of the state's reliance interest in cases such as Policano v. Herbert, supra, 7 N.Y.3d at 588 , 825 N.Y.S.2d 678 , 859 N.E.2d 484 , Powell v. State, supra, 57

2016Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, 42 Conn. App. 1, 4 , 679 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 912 , 682 A.2d 1010 (1996). ‘‘The issue of retroactivity of decisional law is a question of policy to be decided by a state’s Supreme Court, and may be decided by the policy consideration of whether litigants could be deemed to have relied on past precedent or whether the ‘new’ resolution of an ‘old’ issue was fore- shadowed, or whether equity, given the particular facts, requ

2016Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, 42 Conn. App. 1, 4 , 679 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 912 , 682 A.2d 1010 (1996). ‘‘The issue of retroactivity of decisional law is a question of policy to be decided by a state’s Supreme Court, and may be decided by the policy consideration of whether litigants could be deemed to have relied on past precedent or whether the ‘new’ resolution of an ‘old’ issue was fore- shadowed, or whether equity, given the particular facts, requ

2016Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, 42 Conn. App. 1, 4 , 679 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 912 , 682 A.2d 1010 (1996). ‘‘The issue of retroactivity of decisional law is a question of policy to be decided by a state’s Supreme Court, and may be decided by the policy consideration of whether litigants could be deemed to have relied on past precedent or whether the ‘new’ resolution of an ‘old’ issue was fore- shadowed, or whether equity, given the particular facts, requ

2016Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, 42 Conn. App. 1, 4 , 679 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 912 , 682 A.2d 1010 (1996). ‘‘The issue of retroactivity of decisional law is a question of policy to be decided by a state’s Supreme Court, and may be decided by the policy consideration of whether litigants could be deemed to have relied on past precedent or whether the ‘new’ resolution of an ‘old’ issue was fore- shadowed, or whether equity, given the particular facts, requ

2016Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, 42 Conn. App. 1, 4 , 679 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 912 , 682 A.2d 1010 (1996). ‘‘The issue of retroactivity of decisional law is a question of policy to be decided by a state’s Supreme Court, and may be decided by the policy consideration of whether litigants could be deemed to have relied on past precedent or whether the ‘new’ resolution of an ‘old’ issue was fore- shadowed, or whether equity, given the particular facts, requ

2016Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, 42 Conn. App. 1, 4 , 679 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 912 , 682 A.2d 1010 (1996). ‘‘The issue of retroactivity of decisional law is a question of policy to be decided by a state’s Supreme Court, and may be decided by the policy consideration of whether litigants could be deemed to have relied on past precedent or whether the ‘new’ resolution of an ‘old’ issue was fore- shadowed, or whether equity, given the particular facts, requ

2016Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, 42 Conn. App. 1, 4 , 679 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 912 , 682 A.2d 1010 (1996). ‘‘The issue of retroactivity of decisional law is a question of policy to be decided by a state’s Supreme Court, and may be decided by the policy consideration of whether litigants could be deemed to have relied on past precedent or whether the ‘new’ resolution of an ‘old’ issue was fore- shadowed, or whether equity, given the particular facts, requ

2016Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, 42 Conn. App. 1, 4 , 679 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 912 , 682 A.2d 1010 (1996). ‘‘The issue of retroactivity of decisional law is a question of policy to be decided by a state’s Supreme Court, and may be decided by the policy consideration of whether litigants could be deemed to have relied on past precedent or whether the ‘new’ resolution of an ‘old’ issue was fore- shadowed, or whether equity, given the particular facts, requ

2016Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, 42 Conn. App. 1, 4 , 679 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 912 , 682 A.2d 1010 (1996). ‘‘The issue of retroactivity of decisional law is a question of policy to be decided by a state’s Supreme Court, and may be decided by the policy consideration of whether litigants could be deemed to have relied on past precedent or whether the ‘new’ resolution of an ‘old’ issue was fore- shadowed, or whether equity, given the particular facts, requ

2016Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, 42 Conn. App. 1, 4 , 679 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 912 , 682 A.2d 1010 (1996). ‘‘The issue of retroactivity of decisional law is a question of policy to be decided by a state’s Supreme Court, and may be decided by the policy consideration of whether litigants could be deemed to have relied on past precedent or whether the ‘new’ resolution of an ‘old’ issue was fore- shadowed, or whether equity, given the particular facts, requ

2016Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, 42 Conn. App. 1, 4 , 679 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 912 , 682 A.2d 1010 (1996). ‘‘The issue of retroactivity of decisional law is a question of policy to be decided by a state’s Supreme Court, and may be decided by the policy consideration of whether litigants could be deemed to have relied on past precedent or whether the ‘new’ resolution of an ‘old’ issue was fore- shadowed, or whether equity, given the particular facts, requ

2016Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, 42 Conn. App. 1, 4 , 679 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 912 , 682 A.2d 1010 (1996). ‘‘The issue of retroactivity of decisional law is a question of policy to be decided by a state’s Supreme Court, and may be decided by the policy consideration of whether litigants could be deemed to have relied on past precedent or whether the ‘new’ resolution of an ‘old’ issue was fore- shadowed, or whether equity, given the particular facts, requ

2011We merely note that one necessary cost accompanying a precedential judicial system such as ours, which "has a built-in presumption of retroactivity"; Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 642 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984); is that there will be times when courts will be forced to disturb the settled soils of justice. [25] Indeed, one of our primary concerns about Justice Katz' analysis is that she appears to undervalue the importance of the state's reliance interest in cases such as Policano v. Herbert, supra, 7 N.Y.3d at 588 , 825 N.Y.S.2d 678 , 859 N.E.2d 484 , Powell v. State, supra, 57

2011We merely note that one necessary cost accompanying a precedential judicial system such as ours, which "has a built-in presumption of retroactivity"; Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 642 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984); is that there will be times when courts will be forced to disturb the settled soils of justice. [25] Indeed, one of our primary concerns about Justice Katz' analysis is that she appears to undervalue the importance of the state's reliance interest in cases such as Policano v. Herbert, supra, 7 N.Y.3d at 588 , 825 N.Y.S.2d 678 , 859 N.E.2d 484 , Powell v. State, supra, 57

2011We merely note that one necessary cost accompanying a precedential judicial system such as ours, which "has a built-in presumption of retroactivity"; Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 642 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984); is that there will be times when courts will be forced to disturb the settled soils of justice. [25] Indeed, one of our primary concerns about Justice Katz' analysis is that she appears to undervalue the importance of the state's reliance interest in cases such as Policano v. Herbert, supra, 7 N.Y.3d at 588 , 825 N.Y.S.2d 678 , 859 N.E.2d 484 , Powell v. State, supra, 57

2011We merely note that one necessary cost accompanying a precedential judicial system such as ours, which "has a built-in presumption of retroactivity"; Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 642 , 104 S.Ct. 1338 , 79 L.Ed.2d 579 (1984); is that there will be times when courts will be forced to disturb the settled soils of justice. [25] Indeed, one of our primary concerns about Justice Katz' analysis is that she appears to undervalue the importance of the state's reliance interest in cases such as Policano v. Herbert, supra, 7 N.Y.3d at 588 , 825 N.Y.S.2d 678 , 859 N.E.2d 484 , Powell v. State, supra, 57

2005Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ryerson, 201 Conn. 333, 339 , 514 A.2d 337 (1986). 6 Courts in a number of other jurisdictions have determined that it is no longer necessary to establish the validity of horizontal gaze nystagmus testing in every case.

2005Indeed, a legal system based on precedent has a built-in presumption of retroactivity.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ryerson, 201 Conn. 333, 339 , 514 A.2d 337 (1986). 6 Courts in a number of other jurisdictions have determined that it is no longer necessary to establish the validity of horizontal gaze nystagmus testing in every case.

1986Ed. 2d 579 (1984). “ ‘If a “new” constitutional doctrine is truly right, we should not reverse lower courts which have accepted it; nor should we affirm those which have rejected the very arguments we have embraced.’ ” United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 555 , 102 S. Ct. 2579 , 73 L.

1986Ed. 2d 579 (1984). “ ‘If a “new” constitutional doctrine is truly right, we should not reverse lower courts which have accepted it; nor should we affirm those which have rejected the very arguments we have embraced.’ ” United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 555 , 102 S. Ct. 2579 , 73 L.