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 3 courts 1985–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Riley v. Piersongreen2 sentences2017It would serve no useful purpose for this court to repeat the analysis contained in the trial court's decisions. *862 See Riley v. Pierson , 126 Conn.App. 486 , 492, 12 A.3d 581 (2011). 2017It would serve no useful purpose for this court to repeat the analysis contained in the trial court's decisions. *862 See Riley v. Pierson , 126 Conn.App. 486 , 492, 12 A.3d 581 (2011). | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Hemming
green
2 sentences1992The doctrine of successor liability, on which the defendant premises its claim of a repeat violation, is an exception to the general rule that a "bona fide purchaser of the property of a corporation for a valuable consideration takes it free from any trust or lien in favor of creditors, created by the so-called `trust fund doctrine.'" Davis v. Hemming, 101 Conn. 713 , 725 , 127 A. 514 (1925). 1992The doctrine of successor liability, on which the defendant premises its claim of a repeat violation, is an exception to the general rule that a "bona fide purchaser of the property of a corporation for a valuable consideration takes it free from any trust or lien in favor of creditors, created by the so-called `trust fund doctrine.'" Davis v. Hemming, 101 Conn. 713 , 725 , 127 A. 514 (1925). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Shipman
green
2 sentences1985The defendant took an exception to this portion of the charge and requested that the court repeat the instruction, inserting the word “unfavorable.” The court refused this request out of concern that to repeat the charge would merely emphasize the defendant’s failure to testify. 5 Although normally “a party cannot be heard to complain about an alleged error in an instruction given at his request”; State v. Shipman, 195 Conn. 160, 165 , 486 A.2d 1130 (1985); we will address the defendant’s claim in this instance because of its constitutional dimension. 1985The defendant took an exception to this portion of the charge and requested that the court repeat the instruction, inserting the word “unfavorable.” The court refused this request out of concern that to repeat the charge would merely emphasize the defendant’s failure to testify. 5 Although normally “a party cannot be heard to complain about an alleged error in an instruction given at his request”; State v. Shipman, 195 Conn. 160, 165 , 486 A.2d 1130 (1985); we will address the defendant’s claim in this instance because of its constitutional dimension. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.