Subsequently hearing in Connecticut

6 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2022 3 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.

Followed or applied (0)

Case	Followed	Cited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Brown green conn · 1995 2 sentences 2022The court subsequently held a hearing, pursuant to State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502 , 668 A.2d 1288 (1995), during which the court questioned both the foreman and the female juror who had displayed the magnifying glass. 2022The court subsequently held a hearing, pursuant to State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502 , 668 A.2d 1288 (1995), during which the court questioned both the foreman and the female juror who had displayed the magnifying glass.	3	2022–2022
Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp. green conn · 1998 2 sentences 2015In addition, although the trial court held that the exact circumstances of the decedent’s death were not foreseeable, the trial court noted correctly that ‘‘to meet the test of foreseeability, the exact nature of the harm suffered need not have been foreseeable, only the ‘gen- eral’ nature of the harm.’’ (Emphasis omitted.) Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563, 573 , 717 A.2d 215 (1998). 2015In addition, although the trial court held that the exact circumstances of the decedent’s death were not foreseeable, the trial court noted correctly that ‘‘to meet the test of foreseeability, the exact nature of the harm suffered need not have been foreseeable, only the ‘gen- eral’ nature of the harm.’’ (Emphasis omitted.) Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563, 573 , 717 A.2d 215 (1998).	2	2015–2015
State v. Hodge green conn · 1999 2 sentences 2011The court subsequently applied this rule in State v. Hodge, 248 Conn. 207 , 726 A.2d 531 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 , 120 S. Ct. 409 , 145 L. 2011The court subsequently applied this rule in State v. Hodge, 248 Conn. 207 , 726 A.2d 531 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 , 120 S. Ct. 409 , 145 L.	1	2011–2011
Mayabb v. Johnson green scotus · 1999 1 sentence 2011The court subsequently applied this rule in State v. Hodge, 248 Conn. 207 , 726 A.2d 531 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 , 120 S. Ct. 409 , 145 L.	1	2011–2011
Neilson v. Michigan green scotus · 1999 1 sentence 2011The court subsequently applied this rule in State v. Hodge, 248 Conn. 207 , 726 A.2d 531 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 , 120 S. Ct. 409 , 145 L.	1	2011–2011
Turner v. Mississippi green scotus · 1999 1 sentence 2011The court subsequently applied this rule in State v. Hodge, 248 Conn. 207 , 726 A.2d 531 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969 , 120 S. Ct. 409 , 145 L.	1	2011–2011

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-217 (4) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a (4) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-14a (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-1p (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86i (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-1 (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-3 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CT 6 (2011–2022) LA 5 (1919–1990) IL 4 (1918–1978) MN 3 (1905–2005) MI 3 (1962–1977) CA 3 (1939–1963) NJ 3 (1951–1986) PA 3 (1959–2017) NY 2 (2002–2017) UT 2 (2017–2020) TX 2 (1974–1992) GA 2 (1984–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check