suggested standard (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

suggested standard in Connecticut

6 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1940–2013 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Faustgreen
conn · 1996 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001See State v. Faust, 237 Conn. 454, 473 , 678 A.2d 910 (1996).

2001See State v. Faust, 237 Conn. 454, 473 , 678 A.2d 910 (1996).

11
State v. Corchadogreen
conn · 1986 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000See State v. Corchado, 200 Conn. 453, 464 , 512 A.2d 183 (1986).

2000See State v. Corchado, 200 Conn. 453, 464 , 512 A.2d 183 (1986).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Williams v. Commissioner of Correction green
conn · 2010
1 sentence

2013The defendant fails to set forth a suggested standard of review or analysis of this claim. “[T]his court is not an advocate for any party . . . .” State v. Tocco, 120 Conn. App. 768, 786-87 , 993 A.2d 989 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 917 , 996 A.2d 279 (2010).

12013–2013
HEINONEN v. Mandracchia green
conn · 2010
1 sentence

2013The defendant fails to set forth a suggested standard of review or analysis of this claim. “[T]his court is not an advocate for any party . . . .” State v. Tocco, 120 Conn. App. 768, 786-87 , 993 A.2d 989 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 917 , 996 A.2d 279 (2010).

12013–2013
State v. Tocco green
connappct · 2010
2 sentences

2013The defendant fails to set forth a suggested standard of review or analysis of this claim. “[T]his court is not an advocate for any party . . . .” State v. Tocco, 120 Conn. App. 768, 786-87 , 993 A.2d 989 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 917 , 996 A.2d 279 (2010).

2013The defendant fails to set forth a suggested standard of review or analysis of this claim. “[T]his court is not an advocate for any party . . . .” State v. Tocco, 120 Conn. App. 768, 786-87 , 993 A.2d 989 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 917 , 996 A.2d 279 (2010).

12013–2013
State v. Parrott green
conn · 2003
1 sentence

2012Id., 284 .

12012–2012
State v. Preston green
conn · 2008
2 sentences

2009In the dispositional phase, [i]f a violation is found, a court must next determine whether probation should be revoked because the beneficial aspects of probation are no longer being served.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Preston, 286 Conn. 367, 375-76 , 944 A.2d 276 (2008). 3 We note that this case was tried to the court and that during the state’s case-in-chief, the court suggested hearing testimony as to the second phase rather than potentially having to call the witnesses back for another day of testimony.

2009In the dispositional phase, [i]f a violation is found, a court must next determine whether probation should be revoked because the beneficial aspects of probation are no longer being served.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Preston, 286 Conn. 367, 375-76 , 944 A.2d 276 (2008). 3 We note that this case was tried to the court and that during the state’s case-in-chief, the court suggested hearing testimony as to the second phase rather than potentially having to call the witnesses back for another day of testimony.

12009–2009
Crescent Creamery, Inc. v. Milk Control Board green
scotus · 1938
1 sentence

1940An attempt was made to have the decision in the Gardner case reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States but the defendants’ appeals were summarily denied ( 305 U. S. 559 , 59 Sup. Ct. 90, 83 L.

11940–1940

Where else courts name it

CA 47 (1934–2025) PA 45 (1899–2026) IL 34 (1908–2023) TX 24 (1938–2021) OH 15 (1970–2026) NC 13 (1924–2018) FL 12 (1957–2026) OR 11 (1944–2024) MO 11 (1960–2017) NY 10 (1936–2013) MA 10 (1977–2011) NJ 9 (1950–2008) AZ 9 (1965–2025) MD 8 (1974–2015) UT 7 (1917–2026) CT 6 (1940–2013) AR 6 (1950–2016) DC 6 (1959–2005) WY 6 (1967–2008) MI 6 (1957–2014) LA 6 (1975–2023) IN 5 (1924–2008) GA 5 (1983–2005) WA 5 (1970–2025) CO 4 (1986–2019) MN 4 (1897–2015) OK 4 (1932–2014) KS 4 (1964–2009) TN 4 (2004–2017) RI 3 (1982–2011) AK 3 (1980–1997) NE 3 (1951–2025) MT 3 (1928–2003) IA 2 (2001–2021) SD 2 (1979–1988) SC 2 (1984–1990) WV 2 (1955–1955) NH 2 (2006–2014) MS 2 (1972–1996) KY 2 (1919–1959) WI 2 (1977–2000)

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