6 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gallo v. Barilegreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Gallo v. Barile, 284 Conn. 459, 470 , 935 A.2d 103 (2007) (‘‘we consistently have held that a statement is absolutely privileged if it is made in the course of a judicial proceeding and relates to the subject matter of that proceeding’’ (emphasis added)); Kenneson v. Eggert, supra, 196 Conn. App. 782 (‘‘[W]e first determine whether . . . the statements at issue in this case were made during a judicial proceeding. 2024See, e.g., Gallo v. Barile, 284 Conn. 459, 470 , 935 A.2d 103 (2007) (‘‘we consistently have held that a statement is absolutely privileged if it is made in the course of a judicial proceeding and relates to the subject matter of that proceeding’’ (emphasis added)); Kenneson v. Eggert, supra, 196 Conn. App. 782 (‘‘[W]e first determine whether . . . the statements at issue in this case were made during a judicial proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
Travelers Property & Casualty Co. v. Christiegreen2 sentences2022See Travelers Property & Casualty Co. v. Christie, 99 Conn. App. 747, 761 , 916 A.2d 114 (2007) (‘‘[a]lthough the question of relevancy, and thus admissibility, of evidence is subject to review for abuse of discretion, the question of whether an observation of the court properly can be subject to the relevancy analysis at all is a question of law, and therefore our review is plenary’’). 2022See Travelers Property & Casualty Co. v. Christie, 99 Conn. App. 747, 761 , 916 A.2d 114 (2007) (‘‘[a]lthough the question of relevancy, and thus admissibility, of evidence is subject to review for abuse of discretion, the question of whether an observation of the court properly can be subject to the relevancy analysis at all is a question of law, and therefore our review is plenary’’). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torelligreen2 sentences2015See State v. Torelli, 103 Conn. App. 646, 659 , 931 A.2d 337 (2007) (‘‘To be admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, a trial court judge must find that the record satisfies each of the three conditions set forth in [General Statutes] § 52-180. 2015See State v. Torelli, 103 Conn. App. 646, 659 , 931 A.2d 337 (2007) (‘‘To be admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, a trial court judge must find that the record satisfies each of the three conditions set forth in [General Statutes] § 52-180. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Liberty Bankgreen2 sentences2007See Martin v. Liberty Bank, 46 Conn. App. 559, 563 , 699 A.2d 305 (1997). 2007See Martin v. Liberty Bank, 46 Conn. App. 559, 563 , 699 A.2d 305 (1997). | 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. Figueroa
green
2 sentences2019That’s from [State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995)]. ‘‘Such evidence is admissible for other purposes such as to show intent, an element in the crime, identity, malice, motive or a system of criminal activity. ‘‘Whether evidence of the uncharged misconduct is admissible is two- pronged. ‘‘First, the evidence must be relevant and material to, at least, one of the circumstances encompassed by the exceptions to the rule. ‘‘Second, the probative value of such evidence must outweigh the prejudice or affect of the other crimes evidence, and that’s at [State v. Figueroa, supra, 235 Co 2019That’s from [State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995)]. ‘‘Such evidence is admissible for other purposes such as to show intent, an element in the crime, identity, malice, motive or a system of criminal activity. ‘‘Whether evidence of the uncharged misconduct is admissible is two- pronged. ‘‘First, the evidence must be relevant and material to, at least, one of the circumstances encompassed by the exceptions to the rule. ‘‘Second, the probative value of such evidence must outweigh the prejudice or affect of the other crimes evidence, and that’s at [State v. Figueroa, supra, 235 Co | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. DeJesus
green
2 sentences2019That’s from [State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995)]. ‘‘Such evidence is admissible for other purposes such as to show intent, an element in the crime, identity, malice, motive or a system of criminal activity. ‘‘Whether evidence of the uncharged misconduct is admissible is two- pronged. ‘‘First, the evidence must be relevant and material to, at least, one of the circumstances encompassed by the exceptions to the rule. ‘‘Second, the probative value of such evidence must outweigh the prejudice or affect of the other crimes evidence, and that’s at [State v. Figueroa, supra, 235 Co 2019That’s from [State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995)]. ‘‘Such evidence is admissible for other purposes such as to show intent, an element in the crime, identity, malice, motive or a system of criminal activity. ‘‘Whether evidence of the uncharged misconduct is admissible is two- pronged. ‘‘First, the evidence must be relevant and material to, at least, one of the circumstances encompassed by the exceptions to the rule. ‘‘Second, the probative value of such evidence must outweigh the prejudice or affect of the other crimes evidence, and that’s at [State v. Figueroa, supra, 235 Co | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Greene
green
1 sentence1993Likewise in State v. Greene, 209 Conn. 458 , at 477 (1988), the Supreme Court summarized the rule regarding relevancy as follows: The defendants' brief sets out the following test for relevancy, both elements of which he maintains must be met: (1) "The terms [had to have been] used in the crime and (2) the items [had to be] in some manner linked to the Defendant." While this projection of the relevancy test may, in part, be true, it is not the well settled relevancy test that we often have cited, and we see no reason to depart from our precedent in this case. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.