express statutory requirement (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

express statutory requirement in Connecticut

5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2017 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Chrysler Corp. v. Maioccogreen
conn · 1989 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017See Chrysler Corp. v. Maiocco , 209 Conn. 579 , 588, 552 A.2d 1207 (1989) ( "Magnuson-Moss [Act] gives authority to the court to grant attorney's fees in a civil suit"). 13 Because we have determined in part II of this opinion, however, that the court improperly rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on count two, the plaintiff cannot reasonably rely upon that statutory grant of authority as a legal basis for upholding the court's award of attorney's fees with respect to count two.

2017See Chrysler Corp. v. Maiocco , 209 Conn. 579 , 588, 552 A.2d 1207 (1989) ( "Magnuson-Moss [Act] gives authority to the court to grant attorney's fees in a civil suit"). 13 Because we have determined in part II of this opinion, however, that the court improperly rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on count two, the plaintiff cannot reasonably rely upon that statutory grant of authority as a legal basis for upholding the court's award of attorney's fees with respect to count two.

11
Mullaney v. Wilburgreen
scotus · 1975 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 , 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975).

2016See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 95 S.Ct. 1881 , 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975).

11
Kozlowski v. Commissioner of Transportationgreen
conn · 2005 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009See Kozlowski v. Commissioner of Transportation, 274 Conn. 497, 502 , 876 A.2d 1148 (2005); see also Federal Deposit Ins.

2009See Kozlowski v. Commissioner of Transportation, 274 Conn. 497, 502 , 876 A.2d 1148 (2005); see also Federal Deposit Ins.

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
Crawford v. Washington green
scotus · 2004
1 sentence

2008To the extent that Reinke remains good law, we see no reason to extend its limited holding to the factual scenario presented by this criminal case. 10 Defense counsel relied on Crawford v. Washington, supra, 541 U.S. 36 , as one of the bases for his objection to Graham’s testimony regarding the contents of Smith’s statement. 11 Graham testified that he had Smith raise his right hand and swear to the truthfulness of the typewritten statement, which Smith did. 12 The state does not claim on appeal that Smith’s statements were not testimonial in nature within the meaning of Crawford.

12008–2008
Herman v. Division of Special Revenue green
conn · 1984
2 sentences

1993The plaintiff also argues that the termination by the defendants of his employment with the division qualified as a contested case because an agency personnel policy required that the defendants determine the plaintiffs legal right or privilege in continued employment subsequent to his having had a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 7 In support of his argument, the plaintiff suggests that the test for determining whether a proceeding is a contested case was expanded in All Brand Importers, Inc. v. Department of Liquor Control, 213 Conn. 184, 212 , 567 A.2d 1156 (1989), wherein the court stat

1993The plaintiff also argues that the termination by the defendants of his employment with the division qualified as a contested case because an agency personnel policy required that the defendants determine the plaintiffs legal right or privilege in continued employment subsequent to his having had a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 7 In support of his argument, the plaintiff suggests that the test for determining whether a proceeding is a contested case was expanded in All Brand Importers, Inc. v. Department of Liquor Control, 213 Conn. 184, 212 , 567 A.2d 1156 (1989), wherein the court stat

11993–1993
All Brand Importers, Inc. v. Department of Liquor Control green
conn · 1989
2 sentences

1993The plaintiff also argues that the termination by the defendants of his employment with the division qualified as a contested case because an agency personnel policy required that the defendants determine the plaintiffs legal right or privilege in continued employment subsequent to his having had a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 7 In support of his argument, the plaintiff suggests that the test for determining whether a proceeding is a contested case was expanded in All Brand Importers, Inc. v. Department of Liquor Control, 213 Conn. 184, 212 , 567 A.2d 1156 (1989), wherein the court stat

1993The plaintiff also argues that the termination by the defendants of his employment with the division qualified as a contested case because an agency personnel policy required that the defendants determine the plaintiffs legal right or privilege in continued employment subsequent to his having had a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 7 In support of his argument, the plaintiff suggests that the test for determining whether a proceeding is a contested case was expanded in All Brand Importers, Inc. v. Department of Liquor Control, 213 Conn. 184, 212 , 567 A.2d 1156 (1989), wherein the court stat

11993–1993

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-199 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 101 (1892–2025) TX 20 (1903–2025) NY 17 (1910–2016) IL 13 (1970–2021) OH 10 (1951–2024) OR 9 (1981–2025) PA 8 (1954–2021) GA 8 (1972–2022) SD 8 (1984–2013) LA 8 (1981–2018) KS 7 (1900–2015) CO 7 (1919–2008) MO 6 (1987–2022) DC 5 (1989–2015) HI 5 (1960–1976) CT 5 (1993–2017) MT 5 (1927–2020) WA 4 (1955–1998) UT 3 (2004–2024) NC 3 (1950–2010) IN 3 (1927–2016) OK 3 (1950–1992) MA 3 (1951–2011) WV 3 (1990–2005) MN 3 (1961–2013) NH 2 (2010–2020) VT 2 (2003–2009) TN 2 (1943–2005) VA 2 (2000–2001) MD 2 (1962–2007) AK 2 (1982–1994) MI 2 (1975–1999) FL 2 (1991–2024) WI 2 (1932–2005) AZ 2 (1982–1984)

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