5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. John A. Kroh, Jr.green1 sentence1999See, e.g., United States v. Kroh, 915 F.2d 326, 336-37 (8th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (Lay, C. | 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. Lenarz
green
2 sentences2014Relying on State v. Lenarz, 301 Conn. 417 , 22 A.3d 536 (2011), cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1095 , 181 L. 2014Relying on State v. Lenarz, 301 Conn. 417 , 22 A.3d 536 (2011), cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1095 , 181 L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Delacy v. California
green
1 sentence2014Relying on State v. Lenarz, 301 Conn. 417 , 22 A.3d 536 (2011), cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1095 , 181 L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Connecticut v. Lenarz
green
1 sentence2014Relying on State v. Lenarz, 301 Conn. 417 , 22 A.3d 536 (2011), cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1095 , 181 L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
1 sentence1989Ed. 2d 667 (1978), are commonly granted when “the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and . . . the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause”; (emphasis added) id., 155-56 ; it is also true that in this case the trial court granted the hearing expressly reserving any determination of whether the challenged statement was false and whether the statement substantially affected the basis for a finding of pro | 1 | 1989–1989 |
North Carolina v. Alford
green
2 sentences1985Upon returning to the courtroom, counsel informed the court that the defendant wished to withdraw his pleas of not guilty and enter pleas of guilty under the “Alford doctrine.” North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S. Ct. 160 , 27 L. 1985Upon returning to the courtroom, counsel informed the court that the defendant wished to withdraw his pleas of not guilty and enter pleas of guilty under the “Alford doctrine.” North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S. Ct. 160 , 27 L. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
North Carolina v. Butler
red
2 sentences1983Defense counsel took exception to the ruling before DiLullo repeated his testimony to the jury. *112 Although in North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S. Ct. 1755 , 60 L. 1983Defense counsel took exception to the ruling before DiLullo repeated his testimony to the jury. *112 Although in North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S. Ct. 1755 , 60 L. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.