further evidentiary hearing in Connecticut

6 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1996–2017 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Browngreen conn · 1995 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017See State v. Brown , supra, 235 Conn. at 526 , 31 A.3d 434 .	1	1
State v. Browngreen connappct · 2011 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017See State v. Brown , supra, 235 Conn. at 526 , 31 A.3d 434 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Quinn v. Middlesex Insurance green conn · 1988 2 sentences 2009Although the claimant had not challenged the appealability of the board's decision, [our Supreme Court] followed the holding of [ Repasi v. Jenkins Bros., 16 Conn.App. 121 , 546 A.2d 965 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 817 , 550 A.2d 1085 (1988)], in concluding, first that only a final judgment is appealable under § 31-301b, and, second, that the fund's appeal was premature in light of the board's remand order directing the commissioner to conduct a further evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining the correct amount of the award." (Citation omitted.) Hummel v. Marten Transport, Ltd., supra 2009Although the claimant had not challenged the appealability of the board’s decision, [our Supreme Court] followed the holding of [Respasi v. Jenkins Bros., 16 Conn. App. 121 , 546 A.2d 965 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 817 , 550 A.2d 1085 (1988)], in concluding, first that only a final judgment is appealable under § 31-301b, and, second, that the fund’s appeal was premature in light of the board’s remand order directing the commissioner to conduct a further evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining the correct amount of the award.” (Citation omitted.) Hummel v. Marten Transport, Ltd., supr	1	2009–2009
Shortt v. New Milford Police Department neutral conn · 1988 2 sentences 2009Although the claimant had not challenged the appealability of the board's decision, [our Supreme Court] followed the holding of [ Repasi v. Jenkins Bros., 16 Conn.App. 121 , 546 A.2d 965 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 817 , 550 A.2d 1085 (1988)], in concluding, first that only a final judgment is appealable under § 31-301b, and, second, that the fund's appeal was premature in light of the board's remand order directing the commissioner to conduct a further evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining the correct amount of the award." (Citation omitted.) Hummel v. Marten Transport, Ltd., supra 2009Although the claimant had not challenged the appealability of the board’s decision, [our Supreme Court] followed the holding of [Respasi v. Jenkins Bros., 16 Conn. App. 121 , 546 A.2d 965 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 817 , 550 A.2d 1085 (1988)], in concluding, first that only a final judgment is appealable under § 31-301b, and, second, that the fund’s appeal was premature in light of the board’s remand order directing the commissioner to conduct a further evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining the correct amount of the award.” (Citation omitted.) Hummel v. Marten Transport, Ltd., supr	1	2009–2009
Repasi v. Jenkins Bros. green connappct · 1988 2 sentences 2009Although the claimant had not challenged the appealability of the board's decision, [our Supreme Court] followed the holding of [ Repasi v. Jenkins Bros., 16 Conn.App. 121 , 546 A.2d 965 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 817 , 550 A.2d 1085 (1988)], in concluding, first that only a final judgment is appealable under § 31-301b, and, second, that the fund's appeal was premature in light of the board's remand order directing the commissioner to conduct a further evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining the correct amount of the award." (Citation omitted.) Hummel v. Marten Transport, Ltd., supra 2009Although the claimant had not challenged the appealability of the board's decision, [our Supreme Court] followed the holding of [ Repasi v. Jenkins Bros., 16 Conn.App. 121 , 546 A.2d 965 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 817 , 550 A.2d 1085 (1988)], in concluding, first that only a final judgment is appealable under § 31-301b, and, second, that the fund's appeal was premature in light of the board's remand order directing the commissioner to conduct a further evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining the correct amount of the award." (Citation omitted.) Hummel v. Marten Transport, Ltd., supra	1	2009–2009
Hummel v. Marten Transports, Ltd. green conn · 2007 1 sentence 2009Although the claimant had not challenged the appealability of the board's decision, [our Supreme Court] followed the holding of [ Repasi v. Jenkins Bros., 16 Conn.App. 121 , 546 A.2d 965 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 817 , 550 A.2d 1085 (1988)], in concluding, first that only a final judgment is appealable under § 31-301b, and, second, that the fund's appeal was premature in light of the board's remand order directing the commissioner to conduct a further evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining the correct amount of the award." (Citation omitted.) Hummel v. Marten Transport, Ltd., supra	1	2009–2009
Matey v. Estate of Dember green conn · 1989 1 sentence 2007Id., at 629-31, 556 A.2d 599 .	1	2007–2007
Demosthenes v. Baal green scotus · 1990 2 sentences 2005The Supreme Court concluded that, "in the absence of any `meaningful evidence' of incompetency... the District Court correctly denied [the] petitioners' motion for a further evidentiary hearing on the question of [the defendant's] competence to waive his right to proceed." (Citation omitted.) Id., at 736 , 110 S.Ct. 2223 . 2005The Supreme Court concluded that, "in the absence of any `meaningful evidence' of incompetency... the District Court correctly denied [the] petitioners' motion for a further evidentiary hearing on the question of [the defendant's] competence to waive his right to proceed." (Citation omitted.) Id., at 736 , 110 S.Ct. 2223 .	1	2005–2005
State v. Ball green conn · 1993 1 sentence 2000We reverse the denial of the motions to dismiss and remand the case to the trial court for a further evidentiary hearing." (Footnotes omitted.) Id.	1	2000–2000
Lewis v. Connecticut Gaming Policy Board green conn · 1993 2 sentences 1996Under so-called law of the case doctrine "`Where a matter has previously been ruled upon interlocutorily, the court in a subsequent proceeding in the case may treat that decision as the law of the case, if it is of the opinion that the issue was correctly decided . . . .' Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86 , 99 , 439 A.2d 1066 (1982)." Lewis v. Gaming Policy Board, 224 Conn. 693 , 697 , 620 A.2d 780 (1993). "`Nevertheless, if the case comes before [a subsequent judge] regularly and he becomes convinced that the view of the law previously applied by his coordinate predecessor was clearly erroneous a 1996Under so-called law of the case doctrine "`Where a matter has previously been ruled upon interlocutorily, the court in a subsequent proceeding in the case may treat that decision as the law of the case, if it is of the opinion that the issue was correctly decided . . . .' Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86 , 99 , 439 A.2d 1066 (1982)." Lewis v. Gaming Policy Board, 224 Conn. 693 , 697 , 620 A.2d 780 (1993). "`Nevertheless, if the case comes before [a subsequent judge] regularly and he becomes convinced that the view of the law previously applied by his coordinate predecessor was clearly erroneous a	1	1996–1996
Breen v. Phelps green conn · 1982 2 sentences 1996Under so-called law of the case doctrine "`Where a matter has previously been ruled upon interlocutorily, the court in a subsequent proceeding in the case may treat that decision as the law of the case, if it is of the opinion that the issue was correctly decided . . . .' Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86 , 99 , 439 A.2d 1066 (1982)." Lewis v. Gaming Policy Board, 224 Conn. 693 , 697 , 620 A.2d 780 (1993). "`Nevertheless, if the case comes before [a subsequent judge] regularly and he becomes convinced that the view of the law previously applied by his coordinate predecessor was clearly erroneous a 1996Under so-called law of the case doctrine "`Where a matter has previously been ruled upon interlocutorily, the court in a subsequent proceeding in the case may treat that decision as the law of the case, if it is of the opinion that the issue was correctly decided . . . .' Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86 , 99 , 439 A.2d 1066 (1982)." Lewis v. Gaming Policy Board, 224 Conn. 693 , 697 , 620 A.2d 780 (1993). "`Nevertheless, if the case comes before [a subsequent judge] regularly and he becomes convinced that the view of the law previously applied by his coordinate predecessor was clearly erroneous a	1	1996–1996

Where else courts name it

CA 25 (1973–2025) IL 15 (1977–2024) NY 14 (1977–2021) PA 7 (1986–2026) MD 6 (1970–2016) MO 6 (1974–2002) CT 6 (1996–2017) FL 5 (1970–2019) TN 5 (1983–2021) AL 5 (1972–2004) GA 4 (1975–2023) MN 4 (1991–2019) DC 4 (1986–2012) MA 4 (1981–2024) MI 3 (1977–2016) AZ 3 (1977–2016) NM 2 (1998–1998) CO 2 (1991–2026) KY 2 (1978–1978) WA 2 (2014–2014) IA 2 (2006–2006) HI 2 (2018–2018) NC 2 (2016–2016) WI 2 (1986–2020) NE 2 (2015–2022) OH 2 (1985–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check