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 2 courts 1992–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frank v. Streetergreen2 sentences2022See Frank v. Streeter, 192 Conn. 601, 605 , 472 A.2d 1281 (1984) (‘‘When litigation raises difficult questions of law, a trial court is well-advised to request briefs and to defer its written decision until such time as the court has had the opportunity to deliberate and to reach a thoughtful, reasoned conclusion. . . . 2022See Frank v. Streeter, 192 Conn. 601, 605 , 472 A.2d 1281 (1984) (‘‘When litigation raises difficult questions of law, a trial court is well-advised to request briefs and to defer its written decision until such time as the court has had the opportunity to deliberate and to reach a thoughtful, reasoned conclusion. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Hudson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002See Hudon v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 , 118 S.Ct. 488 , 139 L.Ed.2d 540 (1996); State v. Duke, supra. As stated above, the requirement of reimbursing the state for the cost of imprisonment is not primarily criminal in nature, and thus cannot qualify as a second punishment for the purpose of the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause. 12 The motion to strike the eighth special defense is therefore granted. 2002See Hudon v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 , 118 S.Ct. 488 , 139 L.Ed.2d 540 (1996); State v. Duke, supra. As stated above, the requirement of reimbursing the state for the cost of imprisonment is not primarily criminal in nature, and thus cannot qualify as a second punishment for the purpose of the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause. 12 The motion to strike the eighth special defense is therefore granted. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Paniccia v. Success Village Apartments, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2025The trial court, Jacobs, J., held a new trial over three days in December, 2019. 4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Paniccia v. Success Village Apartments, Inc. Paniccia v. Success Village Apartments, Inc., 215 Conn. App. 705 , 284 A.3d 341 (2022). 2025The trial court, Jacobs, J., held a new trial over three days in December, 2019. 4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Paniccia v. Success Village Apartments, Inc. Paniccia v. Success Village Apartments, Inc., 215 Conn. App. 705 , 284 A.3d 341 (2022). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Duke
green
1 sentence2002See Hudon v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 , 118 S.Ct. 488 , 139 L.Ed.2d 540 (1996); State v. Duke, supra. As stated above, the requirement of reimbursing the state for the cost of imprisonment is not primarily criminal in nature, and thus cannot qualify as a second punishment for the purpose of the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause. 12 The motion to strike the eighth special defense is therefore granted. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Martin v. Lotz
neutral
2 sentences1998(That if the buoy was off station . . . such condition was caused by wind and wave action[.])" The plaintiffs argue, citing Martin v. Lotz, 126 Conn. 529 , 534 , 12 A.2d 772 (1940), that this special defense is legally insufficient because in order for an act of God to "relieve a defendant of liability in the admiralty context, not only must a storm be of unprecedented' nature, but the' accident must have been inevitable in the technical admiralty sense."' And, the wind and wave action alleged by the defendant here "falls far short of the type of unusual, unpredictable and unavoidable conditio 1998(That if the buoy was off station . . . such condition was caused by wind and wave action[.])" The plaintiffs argue, citing Martin v. Lotz, 126 Conn. 529 , 534 , 12 A.2d 772 (1940), that this special defense is legally insufficient because in order for an act of God to "relieve a defendant of liability in the admiralty context, not only must a storm be of unprecedented' nature, but the' accident must have been inevitable in the technical admiralty sense."' And, the wind and wave action alleged by the defendant here "falls far short of the type of unusual, unpredictable and unavoidable conditio | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Liljedahl Bros. v. Grigsby
green
2 sentences1998(That if the buoy was off station . . . such condition was caused by wind and wave action[.])" The plaintiffs argue, citing Martin v. Lotz, 126 Conn. 529 , 534 , 12 A.2d 772 (1940), that this special defense is legally insufficient because in order for an act of God to "relieve a defendant of liability in the admiralty context, not only must a storm be of unprecedented' nature, but the' accident must have been inevitable in the technical admiralty sense."' And, the wind and wave action alleged by the defendant here "falls far short of the type of unusual, unpredictable and unavoidable conditio 1998(That if the buoy was off station . . . such condition was caused by wind and wave action[.])" The plaintiffs argue, citing Martin v. Lotz, 126 Conn. 529 , 534 , 12 A.2d 772 (1940), that this special defense is legally insufficient because in order for an act of God to "relieve a defendant of liability in the admiralty context, not only must a storm be of unprecedented' nature, but the' accident must have been inevitable in the technical admiralty sense."' And, the wind and wave action alleged by the defendant here "falls far short of the type of unusual, unpredictable and unavoidable conditio | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE The defendant's eighth special defense states only that the "[p]laintiff should be estopped from obtaining any equitable relief under the dirty hands doctrine." "A motion to strike is properly granted if the [pleading] alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged." Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc., 224 Conn. 210 , 215 , 618 A.2d 25 (1992). 1997EIGHTH SPECIAL DEFENSE The defendant's eighth special defense states only that the "[p]laintiff should be estopped from obtaining any equitable relief under the dirty hands doctrine." "A motion to strike is properly granted if the [pleading] alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged." Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc., 224 Conn. 210 , 215 , 618 A.2d 25 (1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Fairfield Lease Corp. v. Romano's Auto Service
green
1 sentence1992"When the court selected is reasonably appropriate, and where there is no indication that `the parties had such greatly disproportionate bargaining power that the agreement could be regarded as unconscionable, the tendency is to give effect to such agreements.'" Fairfield Lease Corp. v. Romano's Auto Service, 4 Conn. App. 495 , 498 (1985) quoting James and Hazard, Civil Procedure (2nd Ed. 1977) section 12.21. | 1 | 1992–1992 |