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 3 courts 1973–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kimbergreen2 sentences2002See State v. Kimber, 48 Conn. App. 234 , 241-243 , 709 A.2d 570 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 902 , 719 A.2d 1164 (1998) (concerning testimony at an investigatory hearing at the department of consumer protection). 2002See State v. Kimber, 48 Conn. App. 234 , 241-243 , 709 A.2d 570 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 902 , 719 A.2d 1164 (1998) (concerning testimony at an investigatory hearing at the department of consumer protection). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kimbergreen2 sentences2002See State v. Kimber, 48 Conn. App. 234 , 241-243 , 709 A.2d 570 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 902 , 719 A.2d 1164 (1998) (concerning testimony at an investigatory hearing at the department of consumer protection). 2002See State v. Kimber, 48 Conn. App. 234 , 241-243 , 709 A.2d 570 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 902 , 719 A.2d 1164 (1998) (concerning testimony at an investigatory hearing at the department of consumer protection). | 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. Brown
green
2 sentences1999During oral ar gument, this court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the effect of State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502, 525-26 , 668 A.2d 1288 (1995), in which our Supreme Court established the rule that on an allegation of juror misconduct, the trial court must, pursuant to its supervisory authority, sua sponte, order an investigatory hearing to determine whether possible misconduct had occurred. 1999During oral ar gument, this court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the effect of State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502, 525-26 , 668 A.2d 1288 (1995), in which our Supreme Court established the rule that on an allegation of juror misconduct, the trial court must, pursuant to its supervisory authority, sua sponte, order an investigatory hearing to determine whether possible misconduct had occurred. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Groomes
green
1 sentence1997Brown I, supra, 232 Conn. 455 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Moynahan
green
2 sentences1985State v. Moynahan, 164 Conn. 560, 565 , 325 A.2d 199 , cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976 , 94 S. Ct. 291 , 38 L. 1985State v. Moynahan, 164 Conn. 560, 565 , 325 A.2d 199 , cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976 , 94 S. Ct. 291 , 38 L. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Moynahan v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences1985State v. Moynahan, 164 Conn. 560, 565 , 325 A.2d 199 , cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976 , 94 S. Ct. 291 , 38 L. 1985State v. Moynahan, 164 Conn. 560, 565 , 325 A.2d 199 , cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976 , 94 S. Ct. 291 , 38 L. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Textile Workers Union v. Kayser-Roth Corp.
green
1 sentence1985State v. Moynahan, 164 Conn. 560, 565 , 325 A.2d 199 , cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976 , 94 S. Ct. 291 , 38 L. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Miller v. Pate
green
2 sentences1973Although at the time of trial §§ 54-86 (a) and (b) were in existence, we need not determine whether these sections of the statute were purely procedural in nature and therefore not binding on the Superior Court; State Bar Assn. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222 , 140 A.2d 863 ; because the defendant had his own testimony taken at the inquiry by virtue of the right under § 54-47 and because the order of the court was more sweeping in favor of the defendant and was based not on the statute, but, as previously stated, followed Justice Fortas’ opinion in Giles v. Maryland, supra. As w 1973Although at the time of trial §§ 54-86 (a) and (b) were in existence, we need not determine whether these sections of the statute were purely procedural in nature and therefore not binding on the Superior Court; State Bar Assn. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222 , 140 A.2d 863 ; because the defendant had his own testimony taken at the inquiry by virtue of the right under § 54-47 and because the order of the court was more sweeping in favor of the defendant and was based not on the statute, but, as previously stated, followed Justice Fortas’ opinion in Giles v. Maryland, supra. As w | 1 | 1973–1973 |
STATE BAR ASSN. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1973Although at the time of trial §§ 54-86 (a) and (b) were in existence, we need not determine whether these sections of the statute were purely procedural in nature and therefore not binding on the Superior Court; State Bar Assn. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222 , 140 A.2d 863 ; because the defendant had his own testimony taken at the inquiry by virtue of the right under § 54-47 and because the order of the court was more sweeping in favor of the defendant and was based not on the statute, but, as previously stated, followed Justice Fortas’ opinion in Giles v. Maryland, supra. As w 1973Although at the time of trial §§ 54-86 (a) and (b) were in existence, we need not determine whether these sections of the statute were purely procedural in nature and therefore not binding on the Superior Court; State Bar Assn. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222 , 140 A.2d 863 ; because the defendant had his own testimony taken at the inquiry by virtue of the right under § 54-47 and because the order of the court was more sweeping in favor of the defendant and was based not on the statute, but, as previously stated, followed Justice Fortas’ opinion in Giles v. Maryland, supra. As w | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.