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 1 courts 2014–2024 2 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. Diazgreen2 sentences2024In the second category are cases [in which] we have utilized our super- visory powers to articulate a rule or otherwise take measures necessary to remedy a perceived injustice with respect to a preserved or unpreserved claim on appeal.’’ Id., 768 n.30; accord State v. Carrion, 313 Conn. 823 , 850, 100 A.3d 361 (2014). ‘‘Our cases have not always been clear as to the reason for this distinction.’’ State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 , 107 n.11, 25 A.3d 594 (2011). 2024In the second category are cases [in which] we have utilized our super- visory powers to articulate a rule or otherwise take measures necessary to remedy a perceived injustice with respect to a preserved or unpreserved claim on appeal.’’ Id., 768 n.30; accord State v. Carrion, 313 Conn. 823 , 850, 100 A.3d 361 (2014). ‘‘Our cases have not always been clear as to the reason for this distinction.’’ State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 , 107 n.11, 25 A.3d 594 (2011). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2024But ‘‘a review of the cases in both categories demon- Page 32 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 34 ,0 0 Conn. 1 State v. King strates that, in contrast to the second category, the first category consists of cases [in which] there was no perceived or actual injustice apparent on the record, but the facts of the case lent themselves to the articula- tion of prophylactic procedural rules that might well avert such problems in the future.’’ State v. Elson, supra, 311 Conn. 768–69 n.30. ‘‘[W]e will reverse a conviction under our supervisory powers only in the rare case [in which] fairness and justice de 2024But ‘‘a review of the cases in both categories demon- Page 32 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 34 ,0 0 Conn. 1 State v. King strates that, in contrast to the second category, the first category consists of cases [in which] there was no perceived or actual injustice apparent on the record, but the facts of the case lent themselves to the articula- tion of prophylactic procedural rules that might well avert such problems in the future.’’ State v. Elson, supra, 311 Conn. 768–69 n.30. ‘‘[W]e will reverse a conviction under our supervisory powers only in the rare case [in which] fairness and justice de | 2 | 2 |
State v. Turnergreen2 sentences2024But ‘‘a review of the cases in both categories demon- Page 32 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 34 ,0 0 Conn. 1 State v. King strates that, in contrast to the second category, the first category consists of cases [in which] there was no perceived or actual injustice apparent on the record, but the facts of the case lent themselves to the articula- tion of prophylactic procedural rules that might well avert such problems in the future.’’ State v. Elson, supra, 311 Conn. 768–69 n.30. ‘‘[W]e will reverse a conviction under our supervisory powers only in the rare case [in which] fairness and justice de 2024But ‘‘a review of the cases in both categories demon- strates that, in contrast to the second category, the first category consists of cases [in which] there was no perceived or actual injustice apparent on the record, but the facts of the case lent themselves to the articula- tion of prophylactic procedural rules that might well avert such problems in the future.’’ State v. Elson, supra, 311 Conn. 768–69 n.30. ‘‘[W]e will reverse a conviction under our supervisory powers only in the rare case [in which] fairness and justice demand it. . . . [The issue 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 33 0 Co | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Reyes
green
2 sentences2024But ‘‘a review of the cases in both categories demon- Page 32 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 34 ,0 0 Conn. 1 State v. King strates that, in contrast to the second category, the first category consists of cases [in which] there was no perceived or actual injustice apparent on the record, but the facts of the case lent themselves to the articula- tion of prophylactic procedural rules that might well avert such problems in the future.’’ State v. Elson, supra, 311 Conn. 768–69 n.30. ‘‘[W]e will reverse a conviction under our supervisory powers only in the rare case [in which] fairness and justice de 2024But ‘‘a review of the cases in both categories demon- Page 32 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 34 ,0 0 Conn. 1 State v. King strates that, in contrast to the second category, the first category consists of cases [in which] there was no perceived or actual injustice apparent on the record, but the facts of the case lent themselves to the articula- tion of prophylactic procedural rules that might well avert such problems in the future.’’ State v. Elson, supra, 311 Conn. 768–69 n.30. ‘‘[W]e will reverse a conviction under our supervisory powers only in the rare case [in which] fairness and justice de | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Weatherspoon
green
2 sentences2020In the second category are cases wherein we have utilized our supervisory powers to articulate a rule or otherwise take measures necessary to remedy a perceived injustice with respect to a preserved or unpreserved claim on appeal.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Weatherspoon, 332 Conn. 531 , 552–53, 212 A.3d 208 (2019). 19 The Appellate Court also could not say that ‘‘admission of the uncharged misconduct evidence created a distracting side issue, as the evidence admit- ted linked the rifle and the perpetrator of the uncharged shooting to the murder at issue in 2020In the second category are cases wherein we have utilized our supervisory powers to articulate a rule or otherwise take measures necessary to remedy a perceived injustice with respect to a preserved or unpreserved claim on appeal.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Weatherspoon, 332 Conn. 531 , 552–53, 212 A.3d 208 (2019). 19 The Appellate Court also could not say that ‘‘admission of the uncharged misconduct evidence created a distracting side issue, as the evidence admit- ted linked the rifle and the perpetrator of the uncharged shooting to the murder at issue in | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re Daniel N.
green
2 sentences2019In the second category are cases wherein we have utilized our supervisory **553 powers to articulate a rule or otherwise take measures necessary to remedy a perceived injustice with respect to a preserved or unpreserved claim on appeal." (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Daniel N. , 323 Conn. 640 , 646-47, 150 A.3d 657 (2016). 2019In the second category are cases wherein we have utilized our supervisory **553 powers to articulate a rule or otherwise take measures necessary to remedy a perceived injustice with respect to a preserved or unpreserved claim on appeal." (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Daniel N. , 323 Conn. 640 , 646-47, 150 A.3d 657 (2016). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.