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 1 courts 2007–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdygreen2 sentences2026In response, the plaintiff first filed a motion for order in which he requested that the court hold an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, supra, 190 Conn. 48 , to address a number of issues rel- evant to whether the court could exercise jurisdiction over the defendants pursuant to the state’s long arm statute, General Statutes § 52-59b, and whether Con- necticut was the proper forum in which to bring the 5 The plaintiff argues in his appellant’s brief that “[a]ll three of the defendants had both threatened and begun to take actions against the plaintiff in this for 2019Although it is well established that a plaintiff has the burden to prove the court's personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant; see Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy , supra, 190 Conn. at 51 -54 , 459 A.2d 503 ; the plaintiff maintains that neither our Supreme Court nor this court has articulated the standard of proof by which a plaintiff must establish personal jurisdiction to defeat a motion to dismiss filed by a nonresident defendant in a circumstance where a trial court decides the motion on the basis of only the documentary evidence submitted by the parties and without a full eviden | 1 | 2 |
Kenney v. Weavinggreen2 sentences2012See Kenney v. Weaving, 123 Conn. App. 211 , 219 n.5, 1 A.3d 1083 (2010) (observing that plaintiff did not request evidentiary hearing and made no effort to engage in discovery prior to argument on motion to dismiss); St. 2012See Kenney v. Weaving, 123 Conn. App. 211 , 219 n.5, 1 A.3d 1083 (2010) (observing that plaintiff did not request evidentiary hearing and made no effort to engage in discovery prior to argument on motion to dismiss); St. | 1 | 1 |
Ferreira v. Pringlegreen2 sentences2007We disagree. 6 “A motion to dismiss admits all facts well pleaded and invokes any record that accompanies the motion, including supporting affidavits that contain undisputed facts.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Henriquez v. Allegre, 68 Conn. App. 238, 242 , 789 A.2d 1142 (2002); see also Ferreira v. *38 Pringle, 255 Conn. 330, 346-47 , 766 A.2d 400 (2001) (“[w]here . . . the motion [to dismiss] is accompanied by supporting affidavits containing undisputed facts, the court may look to their content for determination of the jurisdictional issue and need not conclusively pr 2007We disagree. 6 “A motion to dismiss admits all facts well pleaded and invokes any record that accompanies the motion, including supporting affidavits that contain undisputed facts.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Henriquez v. Allegre, 68 Conn. App. 238, 242 , 789 A.2d 1142 (2002); see also Ferreira v. *38 Pringle, 255 Conn. 330, 346-47 , 766 A.2d 400 (2001) (“[w]here . . . the motion [to dismiss] is accompanied by supporting affidavits containing undisputed facts, the court may look to their content for determination of the jurisdictional issue and need not conclusively pr | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boykin v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2024The state countered that, although the court did not list the three core constitutional rights delineated in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 , 89 S. Ct. 1709 , 23 L. 2024The state countered that, although the court did not list the three core constitutional rights delineated in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 , 89 S. Ct. 1709 , 23 L. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Barde v. Board of Trustees
green
2 sentences2007We disagree. 6 “A motion to dismiss admits all facts well pleaded and invokes any record that accompanies the motion, including supporting affidavits that contain undisputed facts.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Henriquez v. Allegre, 68 Conn. App. 238, 242 , 789 A.2d 1142 (2002); see also Ferreira v. *38 Pringle, 255 Conn. 330, 346-47 , 766 A.2d 400 (2001) (“[w]here . . . the motion [to dismiss] is accompanied by supporting affidavits containing undisputed facts, the court may look to their content for determination of the jurisdictional issue and need not conclusively pr 2007We disagree. 6 “A motion to dismiss admits all facts well pleaded and invokes any record that accompanies the motion, including supporting affidavits that contain undisputed facts.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Henriquez v. Allegre, 68 Conn. App. 238, 242 , 789 A.2d 1142 (2002); see also Ferreira v. *38 Pringle, 255 Conn. 330, 346-47 , 766 A.2d 400 (2001) (“[w]here . . . the motion [to dismiss] is accompanied by supporting affidavits containing undisputed facts, the court may look to their content for determination of the jurisdictional issue and need not conclusively pr | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Henriquez v. Allegre
green
2 sentences2007We disagree. 6 “A motion to dismiss admits all facts well pleaded and invokes any record that accompanies the motion, including supporting affidavits that contain undisputed facts.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Henriquez v. Allegre, 68 Conn. App. 238, 242 , 789 A.2d 1142 (2002); see also Ferreira v. *38 Pringle, 255 Conn. 330, 346-47 , 766 A.2d 400 (2001) (“[w]here . . . the motion [to dismiss] is accompanied by supporting affidavits containing undisputed facts, the court may look to their content for determination of the jurisdictional issue and need not conclusively pr 2007We disagree. 6 “A motion to dismiss admits all facts well pleaded and invokes any record that accompanies the motion, including supporting affidavits that contain undisputed facts.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Henriquez v. Allegre, 68 Conn. App. 238, 242 , 789 A.2d 1142 (2002); see also Ferreira v. *38 Pringle, 255 Conn. 330, 346-47 , 766 A.2d 400 (2001) (“[w]here . . . the motion [to dismiss] is accompanied by supporting affidavits containing undisputed facts, the court may look to their content for determination of the jurisdictional issue and need not conclusively pr | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.
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.