6 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1941–2025 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. Williamsgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 530 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987). [6] During the direct examination of the victim, the following testimony was elicited: "[The Prosecutor]: Did he ever force himself on you sexually? "[Defense Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor. "[The Witness]: No." [7] During the direct examination of the victim, the state asked, "[d]id you at all mention [to the police] that you had been raped two weeks earlier. . . ." After the court sustained a defense objection, the state asked, "[d]o you recall stating that you had been sexually assaulted earlier, some two weeks earlier, and y 2007See State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 530 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987). [6] During the direct examination of the victim, the following testimony was elicited: "[The Prosecutor]: Did he ever force himself on you sexually? "[Defense Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor. "[The Witness]: No." [7] During the direct examination of the victim, the state asked, "[d]id you at all mention [to the police] that you had been raped two weeks earlier. . . ." After the court sustained a defense objection, the state asked, "[d]o you recall stating that you had been sexually assaulted earlier, some two weeks earlier, and y | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coneygreen2 sentences2006See State v. Coney, 266 Conn. 787, 820 , 835 A.2d 977 (2003) (harm from improper question on cross-examination was immediately cured when trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection); State v. Ubaldi, supra, 190 Conn. 563 (minimal prejudice from question’s improper suggestion where defendant did not respond, court excused jury to discuss objection to question, and court instructed jury to disregard question). 2006See State v. Coney, 266 Conn. 787, 820 , 835 A.2d 977 (2003) (harm from improper question on cross-examination was immediately cured when trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection); State v. Ubaldi, supra, 190 Conn. 563 (minimal prejudice from question’s improper suggestion where defendant did not respond, court excused jury to discuss objection to question, and court instructed jury to disregard question). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Connecticut v. Porter
green
2 sentences2025He just can’t be like, unequiv- ocally.’’ At trial, Robinson initially neglected to qualify his testimony in accordance with the trial court’s order, and the court sustained defense counsel’s objections 23 State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 80–90, 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. 2025He just can’t be like, unequiv- ocally.’’ At trial, Robinson initially neglected to qualify his testimony in accordance with the trial court’s order, and the court sustained defense counsel’s objections 23 State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 80–90, 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Ed. 2d 645 (1998). ‘‘In Porter, we followed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L. 2025Ed. 2d 645 (1998). ‘‘In Porter, we followed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Doyle v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2025In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 , 96 S. Ct. 2240 , 49 L. 2025In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 , 96 S. Ct. 2240 , 49 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Lovilia Coal Co. v. Harvey
green
1 sentence2025He just can’t be like, unequiv- ocally.’’ At trial, Robinson initially neglected to qualify his testimony in accordance with the trial court’s order, and the court sustained defense counsel’s objections 23 State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 80–90, 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n
green
1 sentence2025He just can’t be like, unequiv- ocally.’’ At trial, Robinson initially neglected to qualify his testimony in accordance with the trial court’s order, and the court sustained defense counsel’s objections 23 State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 80–90, 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Remeta v. Stovall
green
1 sentence2025He just can’t be like, unequiv- ocally.’’ At trial, Robinson initially neglected to qualify his testimony in accordance with the trial court’s order, and the court sustained defense counsel’s objections 23 State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 , 80–90, 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 , 118 S. Ct. 1384 , 140 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Town of East Hartford v. Shelmerdine
neutral
1 sentence2009We note that "[a]ny defendant found guilty on the basis of insufficient evidence has been deprived of a constitutional right, and would therefore necessarily meet the four prongs of Golding .... [N]o practical reason exists to engage in a Golding analysis of a sufficiency of the evidence claim...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Singleton, 97 Conn.App. 679 , 684 n. 7, 905 A.2d 725 , cert. granted on other grounds, 280 Conn. 949 , 912 A.2d 484 (2006). [6] When the prosecutor asked the grades or ages of the children who attended that school, the court sustained de | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Slater
green
1 sentence2009We note that "[a]ny defendant found guilty on the basis of insufficient evidence has been deprived of a constitutional right, and would therefore necessarily meet the four prongs of Golding .... [N]o practical reason exists to engage in a Golding analysis of a sufficiency of the evidence claim...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Singleton, 97 Conn.App. 679 , 684 n. 7, 905 A.2d 725 , cert. granted on other grounds, 280 Conn. 949 , 912 A.2d 484 (2006). [6] When the prosecutor asked the grades or ages of the children who attended that school, the court sustained de | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Singleton
green
2 sentences2009We note that "[a]ny defendant found guilty on the basis of insufficient evidence has been deprived of a constitutional right, and would therefore necessarily meet the four prongs of Golding .... [N]o practical reason exists to engage in a Golding analysis of a sufficiency of the evidence claim...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Singleton, 97 Conn.App. 679 , 684 n. 7, 905 A.2d 725 , cert. granted on other grounds, 280 Conn. 949 , 912 A.2d 484 (2006). [6] When the prosecutor asked the grades or ages of the children who attended that school, the court sustained de 2009We note that "[a]ny defendant found guilty on the basis of insufficient evidence has been deprived of a constitutional right, and would therefore necessarily meet the four prongs of Golding .... [N]o practical reason exists to engage in a Golding analysis of a sufficiency of the evidence claim...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Singleton, 97 Conn.App. 679 , 684 n. 7, 905 A.2d 725 , cert. granted on other grounds, 280 Conn. 949 , 912 A.2d 484 (2006). [6] When the prosecutor asked the grades or ages of the children who attended that school, the court sustained de | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Pereles v. Leiser
green
2 sentences1941In Pereles v. Leiser, 119 Wis. 347 , 96 N. W. 799 , the situation was substantially on all fours with the one before us except that the trial court sustained the claim for a deficiency judgment, and an appeal was permitted from that portion of the judgment. *404 We can see no valid reason why an appeal may not properly be taken from a portion of a judgment which is so distinct and severable that, should error be found and the case remanded for further proceedings, the remaining portion would be in no way affected, and we see distinct advantages in allowing such an appeal. 1941In Pereles v. Leiser, 119 Wis. 347 , 96 N. W. 799 , the situation was substantially on all fours with the one before us except that the trial court sustained the claim for a deficiency judgment, and an appeal was permitted from that portion of the judgment. *404 We can see no valid reason why an appeal may not properly be taken from a portion of a judgment which is so distinct and severable that, should error be found and the case remanded for further proceedings, the remaining portion would be in no way affected, and we see distinct advantages in allowing such an appeal. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
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.