6 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tara Cartier Donald Coates v. Paul D. Lussier, Individually and in His Official Capacitygreen2 sentences1996The objective reasonableness test was designed to facilitate this summary device as a means quickly to extricate government officials from defending insubstantial suits.” Cartier v. Lussier, 955 F.2d 841, 844 (2d Cir. 1992). 1994Thus, even where the law and the scope of permissible official conduct are clearly established, the defense of qualified immunity will protect a government official if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him [or her] to believe his [or her] acts were lawful.” Cartier v. Lussier, 955 F.2d 841, 843-44 (2d Cir. 1992). | 2 | 2 |
Glenn Dale Simkunas v. Michael Tardi and Robert Troygreen1 sentence2003In the context of an allegedly unconstitutional arrest, the objective reasonableness standard bars the defense of qualified immunity [o]nly where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 520 ; see also Simkunas v. Tardi, 930 F.2d 1287, 1291 (7th Cir. 1991). “[I]n the context of a § 1983 claim, and for purposes of deciding whether to grant a motion for summary judgment or to direct a verdict, the determination of whether factual disputes are material to the resolution | 1 | 1 |
Franks v. Delawaregreen2 sentences2003See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S. Ct. 2674 , 57 L. 2003See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S. Ct. 2674 , 57 L. | 1 | 1 |
Oliveira v. Mayergreen1 sentence1996“As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not violate those rights.” Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d 642, 648 (2d Cir. 1994). | 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. Canales
green
2 sentences2010Although the majority cites State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 572, 583-84 , 916 A.2d 767 (2007), for the proposition that this court will not review a claim unless it is based on a complete factual record developed by the trial court, I am not convinced that Canales is a useful analog to the present case. 2010Although the majority cites State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 572, 583-84 , 916 A.2d 767 (2007), for the proposition that this court will not review a claim unless it is based on a complete factual record developed by the trial court, I am not convinced that Canales is a useful analog to the present case. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Bellino
green
2 sentences1998“In evaluating the defendant’s belief that he was faced with the imminent use of deadly physical force, the jury must first determine whether the defendant believed that an attack was imminent, and then it must determine whether that belief was reasonable.” State v. Bellino, 31 Conn. App. 385, 392-93 , 625 A.2d 1381 (1993), appeal dismissed, 228 Conn. 851 , 635 A.2d 812 (1994). 1998“In evaluating the defendant’s belief that he was faced with the imminent use of deadly physical force, the jury must first determine whether the defendant believed that an attack was imminent, and then it must determine whether that belief was reasonable.” State v. Bellino, 31 Conn. App. 385, 392-93 , 625 A.2d 1381 (1993), appeal dismissed, 228 Conn. 851 , 635 A.2d 812 (1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Bellino
green
2 sentences1998“In evaluating the defendant’s belief that he was faced with the imminent use of deadly physical force, the jury must first determine whether the defendant believed that an attack was imminent, and then it must determine whether that belief was reasonable.” State v. Bellino, 31 Conn. App. 385, 392-93 , 625 A.2d 1381 (1993), appeal dismissed, 228 Conn. 851 , 635 A.2d 812 (1994). 1998“In evaluating the defendant’s belief that he was faced with the imminent use of deadly physical force, the jury must first determine whether the defendant believed that an attack was imminent, and then it must determine whether that belief was reasonable.” State v. Bellino, 31 Conn. App. 385, 392-93 , 625 A.2d 1381 (1993), appeal dismissed, 228 Conn. 851 , 635 A.2d 812 (1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Jonas Magnotti v. Walter J. Kuntz, Individually and in His Official Capacity as an Officer in the Police Department of New Haven, Ct
green
1 sentence1992The Court of Appeals in Cartier goes on to state that the objective reasonableness standard requires granting summary relief if the affidavit accompanying the warrant is sufficient, after correcting for material misstatements or omissions, to support a reasonable officer's belief that probable cause existed, citing its decision in Magnotti v. Kuntz, 918 F.2d 364 (2d Cir. 1990). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.