5 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1996–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Donahue v. Town of Southingtongreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., Donahue v. Southington, 259 Conn. 783, 794 , 792 A.2d 76 (2002). 2005See, e.g., Donahue v. Southington, 259 Conn. 783, 794 , 792 A.2d 76 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Gary Glenn Cooper and Robert Earl Calloway v. Gene Scroggy, Superintendent, Kentucky State Penitentiary, and David L. Armstrong, Attorney Generalgreen1 sentence2003See also Cooper v. Scroggy, 845 F.2d 1385, 1390 (6th Cir. 1988) (The use of physical force by interrogators creates a heavy presumption, if not a per se rule, that there has been a violation of due process.) .... | 1 | 1 |
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrdgreen1 sentence1999While the impossibility of the lawyers being in two places at once may require some accommodation in scheduling, it seems to me that the heavy presumption should be that the arbitration and the lawsuit will each proceed in its normal course. 470 U.S. at 225 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe
green
2 sentences2001A “prior restraint on expression comes . . . with a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 , 91 S. Ct. 1575 , 29 L. 2001A “prior restraint on expression comes . . . with a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 , 91 S. Ct. 1575 , 29 L. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Lopinto v. Haines
green
1 sentence1996Since the reformation of a deed or contract occasions serious consequences, "`evidence of a very high order' [is required] to overcome . . . `the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties.'" Id., 533-34 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.