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 2 courts 2002–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Francis D.
green
2 sentences2018"Where, however, there is a question as to whether the claim was preserved, as long as it is clear from the record that the trial court effectively was alerted to a claim of potential error while there was still time for the court to act ... the claim will be considered preserved." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Francis D. , 75 Conn. App. 1 , 8-9, 815 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 , 819 A.2d 842 (2003). 2018"Where, however, there is a question as to whether the claim was preserved, as long as it is clear from the record that the trial court effectively was alerted to a claim of potential error while there was still time for the court to act ... the claim will be considered preserved." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Francis D. , 75 Conn. App. 1 , 8-9, 815 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 , 819 A.2d 842 (2003). | 2 | 2007–2018 |
State v. Francis D.
green
2 sentences2018"Where, however, there is a question as to whether the claim was preserved, as long as it is clear from the record that the trial court effectively was alerted to a claim of potential error while there was still time for the court to act ... the claim will be considered preserved." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Francis D. , 75 Conn. App. 1 , 8-9, 815 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 , 819 A.2d 842 (2003). 2018"Where, however, there is a question as to whether the claim was preserved, as long as it is clear from the record that the trial court effectively was alerted to a claim of potential error while there was still time for the court to act ... the claim will be considered preserved." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Francis D. , 75 Conn. App. 1 , 8-9, 815 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 , 819 A.2d 842 (2003). | 2 | 2007–2018 |
United Technologies Corp. v. Town of East Windsor
green
2 sentences2004“Proper preservation of claims for appellate review requires that the trial court [be] effectively . . . alerted to a claim of potential error while there [is] still time for the court to act.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11, 31 , 807 A.2d 955 (2002). 2004“Proper preservation of claims for appellate review requires that the trial court [be] effectively . . . alerted to a claim of potential error while there [is] still time for the court to act.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11, 31 , 807 A.2d 955 (2002). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Pestey v. Cushman
green
2 sentences2003Where, however, there is a question as to whether the claim was preserved, as long as it is clear from the record that “the trial court effectively was alerted to a claim of potential error while there was still time for the court to act”; Pestey v. Cushman, 259 Conn. 345, 367 , 788 A.2d 496 (2002); the claim will be considered preserved. 2003Where, however, there is a question as to whether the claim was preserved, as long as it is clear from the record that “the trial court effectively was alerted to a claim of potential error while there was still time for the court to act”; Pestey v. Cushman, 259 Conn. 345, 367 , 788 A.2d 496 (2002); the claim will be considered preserved. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2002See State v. Bush, supra, 249 Conn. 428 ; State v. Jones, 193 Conn. 70, 88 , 475 A.2d 1087 (1984). 2002See State v. Bush, supra, 249 Conn. 428 ; State v. Jones, 193 Conn. 70, 88 , 475 A.2d 1087 (1984). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.