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.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. McLaughlingreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. McLaughlin, 135 Conn. App. 193, 202 , 41 A.3d 694 , cert. denied, 307 Conn. 904 , 53 A.3d 219 (2012). 22 Although the state does not couch its argument in jurisdictional terms, its contention that the defendant failed to challenge an independent basis 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 39 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 41 State v. Wright ‘‘Mootness is a question of justiciability that must be addressed as a threshold matter because it implicates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction . . . . [I]t is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot ques- tions, disconnected from the 2025See, e.g., State v. McLaughlin, 135 Conn. App. 193, 202 , 41 A.3d 694 , cert. denied, 307 Conn. 904 , 53 A.3d 219 (2012). 22 Although the state does not couch its argument in jurisdictional terms, its contention that the defendant failed to challenge an independent basis 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 39 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 41 State v. Wright ‘‘Mootness is a question of justiciability that must be addressed as a threshold matter because it implicates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction . . . . [I]t is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot ques- tions, disconnected from the | 1 | 1 |
Stewart-Brownstein v. Caseygreen2 sentences2002See Stewart-Brownstein v. Casey, 53 Conn. App. 84, 90 , 728 A.2d 1130 (1999) (“ [n] oncompliance with General Statutes § 52-45a and Practice Book § 8-lmerely deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants unless the plaintiffs waived the lack of personal jurisdiction”). 2002See Stewart-Brownstein v. Casey, 53 Conn. App. 84, 90 , 728 A.2d 1130 (1999) (“ [n] oncompliance with General Statutes § 52-45a and Practice Book § 8-lmerely deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants unless the plaintiffs waived the lack of personal jurisdiction”). | 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. Golding
green
2 sentences2022The state also argues that the defendant’s unpreserved claim is not reviewable under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 39–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), ‘‘because a trial court’s ruling on the proper evidentiary foundation for admitting evidence is not an issue of constitutional dimension.’’ Alternatively, the state maintains that, even if the defendant’s claim is reviewable, the trial court acted well within its discre- tion in excluding the proffered expert testimony from Oulundsen because, during the proffer, defense couns 2022The state also argues that the defendant’s unpreserved claim is not reviewable under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 39–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), ‘‘because a trial court’s ruling on the proper evidentiary foundation for admitting evidence is not an issue of constitutional dimension.’’ Alternatively, the state maintains that, even if the defendant’s claim is reviewable, the trial court acted well within its discre- tion in excluding the proffered expert testimony from Oulundsen because, during the proffer, defense couns | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Fleming
green
1 sentence2021Here, the defendant failed to challenge the court’s independent basis for denying his motion to dismiss that, pursuant to State v. Fleming, supra, 198 Conn. 255 , an illegal arrest does not invalidate his prosecution and subsequent conviction.5 In his brief, the defendant first argued that the court erred in its finding that the Madison Police Department had the authority to investi- gate this crime and in its determination that larceny of money, as opposed to larceny of physical property, is a continuing crime such that each municipality where the money is spent has jurisdiction to arrest the | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Hawkins
green
2 sentences1974State v. Hawkins, 162 Conn. 514, 515-16 , 294 A.2d 584 . 1974State v. Hawkins, 162 Conn. 514, 515-16 , 294 A.2d 584 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.