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 1996–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Turnergreen2 sentences2004“According to the Lozada framework: A petitioner satisfies that burden by demonstrating: [1] that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; [2] that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner]; or [3] that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see also State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 430 , 838 A.2d 947 (2004). 2004“According to the Lozada framework: A petitioner satisfies that burden by demonstrating: [1] that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; [2] that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner]; or [3] that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see also State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 430 , 838 A.2d 947 (2004). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2002Probable cause issues, like those presented in this case, are questions of law; see, e.g., State v. Smith, 257 Conn. 216, 223 , 777 A.2d 182 (2001); that may satisfy either of the first two factors delineated in the Lozada inquiry we have adopted herein. 2002Probable cause issues, like those presented in this case, are questions of law; see, e.g., State v. Smith, 257 Conn. 216, 223 , 777 A.2d 182 (2001); that may satisfy either of the first two factors delineated in the Lozada inquiry we have adopted herein. | 1 | 1 |
Serrani v. Board of Ethicsgreen2 sentences1996Our case law dictates that the failure to file the petition within ten days of the judgment of dismissal deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction to grant a new ten day period. “[Jurisdiction of the subject matter is a question of law and cannot be waived or conferred by consent either in the trial court or here.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Serrani v. Board of Ethics, 225 Conn. 305, 308, 622 A.2d 1009 (1993). 1996Our case law dictates that the failure to file the petition within ten days of the judgment of dismissal deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction to grant a new ten day period. “[Jurisdiction of the subject matter is a question of law and cannot be waived or conferred by consent either in the trial court or here.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Serrani v. Board of Ethics, 225 Conn. 305, 308, 622 A.2d 1009 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Seebeck v. State
green
2 sentences2005Seebeck v. State, 246 Conn. 514, 534 , 717 A.2d 1161 (1998). “[W]hen a petitioner presents an issue on appeal that satisfies any one of the Lozada criteria, that petitioner ought to have that issue considered on appeal.” State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 431 , 838 A.2d 947 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 , 125 S. Ct. 36 , 160 L. 2005Seebeck v. State, 246 Conn. 514, 534 , 717 A.2d 1161 (1998). “[W]hen a petitioner presents an issue on appeal that satisfies any one of the Lozada criteria, that petitioner ought to have that issue considered on appeal.” State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 431 , 838 A.2d 947 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 , 125 S. Ct. 36 , 160 L. | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Daniels v. State
neutral
2 sentences2013According to the Lozada framework, a petitioner can establish a clear abuse of discretion by demonstrating one of the following criteria: (1) that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed farther.” (Citations omitted.) Daniels v. State, 88 Conn. App. 572, 575-76 , 870 A.2d 1109 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 902 , 876 A.2d 11 (2005). 2013According to the Lozada framework, a petitioner can establish a clear abuse of discretion by demonstrating one of the following criteria: (1) that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed farther.” (Citations omitted.) Daniels v. State, 88 Conn. App. 572, 575-76 , 870 A.2d 1109 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 902 , 876 A.2d 11 (2005). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Daniels v. State
green
2 sentences2013According to the Lozada framework, a petitioner can establish a clear abuse of discretion by demonstrating one of the following criteria: (1) that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed farther.” (Citations omitted.) Daniels v. State, 88 Conn. App. 572, 575-76 , 870 A.2d 1109 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 902 , 876 A.2d 11 (2005). 2013According to the Lozada framework, a petitioner can establish a clear abuse of discretion by demonstrating one of the following criteria: (1) that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; (2) that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner; or (3) that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed farther.” (Citations omitted.) Daniels v. State, 88 Conn. App. 572, 575-76 , 870 A.2d 1109 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 902 , 876 A.2d 11 (2005). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Kalama Services, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor
green
2 sentences2005Seebeck v. State, 246 Conn. 514, 534 , 717 A.2d 1161 (1998). “[W]hen a petitioner presents an issue on appeal that satisfies any one of the Lozada criteria, that petitioner ought to have that issue considered on appeal.” State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 431 , 838 A.2d 947 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 , 125 S. Ct. 36 , 160 L. 2005Seebeck v. State, 246 Conn. 514, 534 , 717 A.2d 1161 (1998). “[W]hen a petitioner presents an issue on appeal that satisfies any one of the Lozada criteria, that petitioner ought to have that issue considered on appeal.” State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 431 , 838 A.2d 947 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 , 125 S. Ct. 36 , 160 L. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Turner v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences2005Seebeck v. State, 246 Conn. 514, 534 , 717 A.2d 1161 (1998). “[W]hen a petitioner presents an issue on appeal that satisfies any one of the Lozada criteria, that petitioner ought to have that issue considered on appeal.” State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 431 , 838 A.2d 947 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 , 125 S. Ct. 36 , 160 L. 2005Seebeck v. State, 246 Conn. 514, 534 , 717 A.2d 1161 (1998). “[W]hen a petitioner presents an issue on appeal that satisfies any one of the Lozada criteria, that petitioner ought to have that issue considered on appeal.” State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 431 , 838 A.2d 947 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 , 125 S. Ct. 36 , 160 L. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Simms v. Warden, State Prison
green
2 sentences2004For instance, in Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616 , 646 A.2d 126 (1994), we concluded that the Lozada test applied to the denial of a request for certification to appeal from an adverse habeas corpus determination pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (b). 2004For instance, in Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616 , 646 A.2d 126 (1994), we concluded that the Lozada test applied to the denial of a request for certification to appeal from an adverse habeas corpus determination pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (b). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. James
green
2 sentences2004For example, in State v. James, 261 Conn. 395, 409 , 802 A.2d 820 (2002), this court adopted the Lozada test in order to provide a framework within which to determine whether a trial court abused its discretion when it denied the state’s request to appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 54-96. 2004For example, in State v. James, 261 Conn. 395, 409 , 802 A.2d 820 (2002), this court adopted the Lozada test in order to provide a framework within which to determine whether a trial court abused its discretion when it denied the state’s request to appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 54-96. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Copas v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2002Similarly, in Copas v. Commissioner of Correction, 234 Conn. 139, 149 , 662 A.2d 718 (1995), the habeas court held that the petitioner had received ineffective assistance of counsel at the time of his guilty plea. 2002Similarly, in Copas v. Commissioner of Correction, 234 Conn. 139, 149 , 662 A.2d 718 (1995), the habeas court held that the petitioner had received ineffective assistance of counsel at the time of his guilty plea. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Barefoot v. Estelle
red
2 sentences2002B The Lozada inquiry was established in order to determine whether a petitioner has made the requisite “substantial showing of the denial of a federal right” for the issuance of the required certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 , 103 S. Ct. 3383 , 77 L. 2002B The Lozada inquiry was established in order to determine whether a petitioner has made the requisite “substantial showing of the denial of a federal right” for the issuance of the required certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 , 103 S. Ct. 3383 , 77 L. | 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.
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.