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 2003–2026 4 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. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2024Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 , 266 n.69, 828 A.2d 64 (2003); see also State v. Rodriguez, 337 Conn. 175 , 189 sense of not debatable. . . . | 1 | 1 |
QuesTech Financial, LLC v. Benni's, LLCgreen2 sentences2008See QuesTech Financial, LLC v. Benni's, LLC, 105 Conn.App. 749 , 752 n. 1, 939 A.2d 1220 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 916 , 951 A.2d 567 (2008). [13] The respondent also claims that the court improperly admitted the hearsay statements of Melissa D. and William B. in Mantell's summary and psychological reports. 2008See QuesTech Financial, LLC v. Benni's, LLC, 105 Conn.App. 749 , 752 n. 1, 939 A.2d 1220 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 916 , 951 A.2d 567 (2008). [13] The respondent also claims that the court improperly admitted the hearsay statements of Melissa D. and William B. in Mantell's summary and psychological reports. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stephen O.green1 sentence2008See QuesTech Financial, LLC v. Benni's, LLC, 105 Conn.App. 749 , 752 n. 1, 939 A.2d 1220 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 916 , 951 A.2d 567 (2008). [13] The respondent also claims that the court improperly admitted the hearsay statements of Melissa D. and William B. in Mantell's summary and psychological reports. | 1 | 1 |
Hochman v. PREMIER RESOURCE GROUP, INC.green1 sentence2008See QuesTech Financial, LLC v. Benni's, LLC, 105 Conn.App. 749 , 752 n. 1, 939 A.2d 1220 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 916 , 951 A.2d 567 (2008). [13] The respondent also claims that the court improperly admitted the hearsay statements of Melissa D. and William B. in Mantell's summary and psychological reports. | 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. Carlson
green
2 sentences2026Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024). “[W] e will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 820 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017). 2025Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insuffi- cient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024). | 2 | 2025–2026 |
Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 , 266 n.69, 828 A.2d 64 (2003); see also State v. Rodriguez, 337 Conn. 175 , 189 sense of not debatable. . . . 2024Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 , 266 n.69, 828 A.2d 64 (2003); see also State v. Rodriguez, 337 Conn. 175 , 189 sense of not debatable. . . . | 2 | 2008–2024 |
Sousa v. Sousa
green
1 sentence2026Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024). “[W] e will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 820 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Thorpe v. Comm'r of Corr.
green
1 sentence2026Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024). “[W] e will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 820 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Toro
green
2 sentences2026Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024). “[W] e will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 820 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017). 2026Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024). “[W] e will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 820 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Larsen
green
1 sentence2025It is well established, however, that an unpreserved claim is reviewable under Golding when (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitu- tional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the [petitioner] of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harm- lessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 334 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Beaulieu
green
1 sentence2025It is well established, however, that an unpreserved claim is reviewable under Golding when (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitu- tional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the [petitioner] of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harm- lessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 334 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Beaulieu
green
2 sentences2025It is well established, however, that an unpreserved claim is reviewable under Golding when (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitu- tional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the [petitioner] of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harm- lessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 334 2025It is well established, however, that an unpreserved claim is reviewable under Golding when (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitu- tional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the [petitioner] of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harm- lessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 334 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Williams v. Commissioner of Correction
neutral
1 sentence2025It is well established, however, that an unpreserved claim is reviewable under Golding when (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitu- tional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the [petitioner] of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harm- lessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 334 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Turner
green
1 sentence2025It is well established, however, that an unpreserved claim is reviewable under Golding when (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitu- tional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the [petitioner] of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harm- lessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 334 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Pestey v. Cushman
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.