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 3 courts 1970–1994 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Coelho v. Posi-Seal International, Inc.green2 sentences1993Coelho v. Posi-Seal International, Inc., 208 Conn. 106 . 1990See Coelho v. Posi-Seal Intern, Inc., 208 Conn. 106 (1988). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences1994State v. DeFreitas, 179 Conn. 431, 449 , 426 A.2d 799 (1980), citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S. Ct. 1038 , 35 L. 1994State v. DeFreitas, 179 Conn. 431, 449 , 426 A.2d 799 (1980), citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S. Ct. 1038 , 35 L. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. DeFreitas
green
2 sentences1994State v. DeFreitas, 179 Conn. 431, 449 , 426 A.2d 799 (1980), citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S. Ct. 1038 , 35 L. 1994State v. DeFreitas, 179 Conn. 431, 449 , 426 A.2d 799 (1980), citing Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S. Ct. 1038 , 35 L. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Duffen
green
2 sentences1985In those instances, it is “proper procedure” for the trial court to hold “a preliminary evidential hearing in the absence of the jury to determine whether the proffered in-court identification was based on or tainted by an unconstitutional confrontation.” State v. Duffen, 160 Conn. 77, 82 , 273 A.2d 863 (1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 914 , 91 S. Ct. 1397 , 28 L. 1985In those instances, it is “proper procedure” for the trial court to hold “a preliminary evidential hearing in the absence of the jury to determine whether the proffered in-court identification was based on or tainted by an unconstitutional confrontation.” State v. Duffen, 160 Conn. 77, 82 , 273 A.2d 863 (1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 914 , 91 S. Ct. 1397 , 28 L. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Hacker v. Gaffney
green
1 sentence1985In those instances, it is “proper procedure” for the trial court to hold “a preliminary evidential hearing in the absence of the jury to determine whether the proffered in-court identification was based on or tainted by an unconstitutional confrontation.” State v. Duffen, 160 Conn. 77, 82 , 273 A.2d 863 (1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 914 , 91 S. Ct. 1397 , 28 L. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
McKinney v. Patuxent Institution Director
green
1 sentence1985In those instances, it is “proper procedure” for the trial court to hold “a preliminary evidential hearing in the absence of the jury to determine whether the proffered in-court identification was based on or tainted by an unconstitutional confrontation.” State v. Duffen, 160 Conn. 77, 82 , 273 A.2d 863 (1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 914 , 91 S. Ct. 1397 , 28 L. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Watkins v. Sowders
green
2 sentences1985Ed. 2d 657 (1971); cf. Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341 , 101 S. Ct. 654 , 66 L. 1985Ed. 2d 657 (1971); cf. Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341 , 101 S. Ct. 654 , 66 L. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Melvina O'Neal v. United States
green
1 sentence1970In O’Neal v. United States, 222 F.2d 411 , the defendant was convicted of a violation of a narcotics statute. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.