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 2015–2025 4 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. Dicksongreen2 sentences2025In support of this contention, the defendant, in effect, asserts that the suggestiveness issues that arise when an eyewitness makes an identification of a defendant for the first time in court; see State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 446 , 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, 582 U.S. 922 , 137 S. Ct. 2263 , 198 L. Ed. 2d 713 (2017);12 also are present when a nonpercipient witness is first shown a video in a courtroom and makes an identification of a defendant in court from that video. 2025In support of this contention, the defendant, in effect, asserts that the suggestiveness issues that arise when an eyewitness makes an identification of a defendant for the first time in court; see State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 446 , 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, 582 U.S. 922 , 137 S. Ct. 2263 , 198 L. Ed. 2d 713 (2017);12 also are present when a nonpercipient witness is first shown a video in a courtroom and makes an identification of a defendant in court from that video. | 1 | 1 |
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Goregreen2 sentences2021See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575 , 116 S. Ct. 1589 , 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 (1996) (directing courts to consider three guideposts when reviewing punitive damage awards: ‘‘[1] the degree of reprehensibility of the [defendant’s misconduct]; [2] the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by [the plaintiff] and [the] punitive damages award; and [3] the difference between [the punitive damages awarded by the jury] and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases’’). 2021See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575 , 116 S. Ct. 1589 , 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 (1996) (directing courts to consider three guideposts when reviewing punitive damage awards: ‘‘[1] the degree of reprehensibility of the [defendant’s misconduct]; [2] the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by [the plaintiff] and [the] punitive damages award; and [3] the difference between [the punitive damages awarded by the jury] and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases’’). | 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. Orlando F.
green
2 sentences2025We have not yet addressed whether the bias of a nonpercipient lay witness factors into the totality of the circumstances analysis under the Gore factors, although the Appellate Court has held that ‘‘bias concerns the weight to be afforded to a witness’ testimony and not its admissibility.’’ (Emphasis omitted.) State v. Orlando F., 233 Conn. App. 1, 23 , A.3d (2025). 2025We have not yet addressed whether the bias of a nonpercipient lay witness factors into the totality of the circumstances analysis under the Gore factors, although the Appellate Court has held that ‘‘bias concerns the weight to be afforded to a witness’ testimony and not its admissibility.’’ (Emphasis omitted.) State v. Orlando F., 233 Conn. App. 1, 23 , A.3d (2025). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Connecticut v. Dickson
green
2 sentences2025In support of this contention, the defendant, in effect, asserts that the suggestiveness issues that arise when an eyewitness makes an identification of a defendant for the first time in court; see State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 446 , 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, 582 U.S. 922 , 137 S. Ct. 2263 , 198 L. Ed. 2d 713 (2017);12 also are present when a nonpercipient witness is first shown a video in a courtroom and makes an identification of a defendant in court from that video. 2025In support of this contention, the defendant, in effect, asserts that the suggestiveness issues that arise when an eyewitness makes an identification of a defendant for the first time in court; see State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 446 , 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, 582 U.S. 922 , 137 S. Ct. 2263 , 198 L. Ed. 2d 713 (2017);12 also are present when a nonpercipient witness is first shown a video in a courtroom and makes an identification of a defendant in court from that video. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Sumler
green
2 sentences2022State v. Sumler, supra, 345 Conn. 961 . 10 After the parties submitted their supplemental briefs, our Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Davis, 344 Conn. 122 , 145, 277 A.3d 1234 (2022), in which it applied the Gore factors retroactively. 2022State v. Sumler, supra, 345 Conn. 961 . 10 After the parties submitted their supplemental briefs, our Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Davis, 344 Conn. 122 , 145, 277 A.3d 1234 (2022), in which it applied the Gore factors retroactively. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2022State v. Sumler, supra, 345 Conn. 961 . 10 After the parties submitted their supplemental briefs, our Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Davis, 344 Conn. 122 , 145, 277 A.3d 1234 (2022), in which it applied the Gore factors retroactively. 2022State v. Sumler, supra, 345 Conn. 961 . 10 After the parties submitted their supplemental briefs, our Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Davis, 344 Conn. 122 , 145, 277 A.3d 1234 (2022), in which it applied the Gore factors retroactively. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Gore
green
1 sentence2015The threshold Gore requirement having been satisfied, we proceed to a ‘‘totality of the circumstances analysis to determine whether the defendant’s personal waiver of a jury trial was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.’’ Id., 782 n.12. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.