issue under the plain error (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

issue under the plain error in Connecticut

5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 1 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit Districtgreen
conn · 1995 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See, e.g., State v. Velasco, 253 Conn. 210 , 218 n. 9, 751 A.2d 800 (2000) (invoking plain error doctrine to reach unpreserved issue of first impression as to construction of statute); Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, 235 Conn. 1 , 37, 39, 664 A.2d 719 (1995) ("we reach this issue under the plain error rule" where "for the first time, we are asked to decide whether a plaintiff may be awarded prejudgment interest under the [Connecticut Antitrust Act, General Statutes § 35-24 et seq. ]"); Madison Hills Ltd.

2016See, e.g., State v. Velasco, 253 Conn. 210 , 218 n. 9, 751 A.2d 800 (2000) (invoking plain error doctrine to reach unpreserved issue of first impression as to construction of statute); Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, 235 Conn. 1 , 37, 39, 664 A.2d 719 (1995) ("we reach this issue under the plain error rule" where "for the first time, we are asked to decide whether a plaintiff may be awarded prejudgment interest under the [Connecticut Antitrust Act, General Statutes § 35-24 et seq. ]"); Madison Hills Ltd.

11
State v. Velascogreen
conn · 2000 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See, e.g., State v. Velasco, 253 Conn. 210 , 218 n. 9, 751 A.2d 800 (2000) (invoking plain error doctrine to reach unpreserved issue of first impression as to construction of statute); Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, 235 Conn. 1 , 37, 39, 664 A.2d 719 (1995) ("we reach this issue under the plain error rule" where "for the first time, we are asked to decide whether a plaintiff may be awarded prejudgment interest under the [Connecticut Antitrust Act, General Statutes § 35-24 et seq. ]"); Madison Hills Ltd.

2016See, e.g., State v. Velasco, 253 Conn. 210 , 218 n. 9, 751 A.2d 800 (2000) (invoking plain error doctrine to reach unpreserved issue of first impression as to construction of statute); Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, 235 Conn. 1 , 37, 39, 664 A.2d 719 (1995) ("we reach this issue under the plain error rule" where "for the first time, we are asked to decide whether a plaintiff may be awarded prejudgment interest under the [Connecticut Antitrust Act, General Statutes § 35-24 et seq. ]"); Madison Hills Ltd.

11
Colby v. Colbygreen
connappct · 1994 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994Practice Book § 4185; see Colby v. Colby, 33 Conn. App. 417, 421 , 635 A.2d 1241 (1994). 6 Our review of the trial court file, the exhibits before the trial court, and the transcript of the trial court hearing reveals that the trial court did not have sufficient information before it to consider the financial condition of the natural parents adequately.

1994Practice Book § 4185; see Colby v. Colby, 33 Conn. App. 417, 421 , 635 A.2d 1241 (1994). 6 Our review of the trial court file, the exhibits before the trial court, and the transcript of the trial court hearing reveals that the trial court did not have sufficient information before it to consider the financial condition of the natural parents adequately.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

CaseNegativeCited
State v. Fagangreen
conn · 2006 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc., 35 Conn.App. 81 , 83-84, 90, 644 A.2d 363 (noting that "[o]ur research has revealed no reported cases" that adjudicate the "difficult [unpreserved] question ... presented in this case" as to construction of Uniform Partnership Act [General Statutes § 34-39 et seq. ], and reaching it pursuant to plain error doctrine), cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913 , 648 A.2d 153 (1994) ; Walker v. Lombardo, 2 Conn.App. 266 , 269, 477 A.2d 168 (1984) (noting that "[t]here is no Connecticut case which is dispositive of the particular [unpreserved] issue of this case," as to ru

2016Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc., 35 Conn.App. 81 , 83-84, 90, 644 A.2d 363 (noting that "[o]ur research has revealed no reported cases" that adjudicate the "difficult [unpreserved] question ... presented in this case" as to construction of Uniform Partnership Act [General Statutes § 34-39 et seq. ], and reaching it pursuant to plain error doctrine), cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913 , 648 A.2d 153 (1994) ; Walker v. Lombardo, 2 Conn.App. 266 , 269, 477 A.2d 168 (1984) (noting that "[t]here is no Connecticut case which is dispositive of the particular [unpreserved] issue of this case," as to ru

11

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Golding green
conn · 1989
2 sentences

2026The petitioner seeks review of this issue under the plain error doctrine set forth in Practice Book § 60-5 and pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).

2026The petitioner seeks review of this issue under the plain error doctrine set forth in Practice Book § 60-5 and pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).

22001–2026
Walker v. Lombardo green
connappct · 1984
2 sentences

2016Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc., 35 Conn.App. 81 , 83-84, 90, 644 A.2d 363 (noting that "[o]ur research has revealed no reported cases" that adjudicate the "difficult [unpreserved] question ... presented in this case" as to construction of Uniform Partnership Act [General Statutes § 34-39 et seq. ], and reaching it pursuant to plain error doctrine), cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913 , 648 A.2d 153 (1994) ; Walker v. Lombardo, 2 Conn.App. 266 , 269, 477 A.2d 168 (1984) (noting that "[t]here is no Connecticut case which is dispositive of the particular [unpreserved] issue of this case," as to ru

2016Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc., 35 Conn.App. 81 , 83-84, 90, 644 A.2d 363 (noting that "[o]ur research has revealed no reported cases" that adjudicate the "difficult [unpreserved] question ... presented in this case" as to construction of Uniform Partnership Act [General Statutes § 34-39 et seq. ], and reaching it pursuant to plain error doctrine), cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913 , 648 A.2d 153 (1994) ; Walker v. Lombardo, 2 Conn.App. 266 , 269, 477 A.2d 168 (1984) (noting that "[t]here is no Connecticut case which is dispositive of the particular [unpreserved] issue of this case," as to ru

12016–2016
Madison Hills Ltd. Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc. green
connappct · 1994
2 sentences

2016Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc., 35 Conn.App. 81 , 83-84, 90, 644 A.2d 363 (noting that "[o]ur research has revealed no reported cases" that adjudicate the "difficult [unpreserved] question ... presented in this case" as to construction of Uniform Partnership Act [General Statutes § 34-39 et seq. ], and reaching it pursuant to plain error doctrine), cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913 , 648 A.2d 153 (1994) ; Walker v. Lombardo, 2 Conn.App. 266 , 269, 477 A.2d 168 (1984) (noting that "[t]here is no Connecticut case which is dispositive of the particular [unpreserved] issue of this case," as to ru

2016Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc., 35 Conn.App. 81 , 83-84, 90, 644 A.2d 363 (noting that "[o]ur research has revealed no reported cases" that adjudicate the "difficult [unpreserved] question ... presented in this case" as to construction of Uniform Partnership Act [General Statutes § 34-39 et seq. ], and reaching it pursuant to plain error doctrine), cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913 , 648 A.2d 153 (1994) ; Walker v. Lombardo, 2 Conn.App. 266 , 269, 477 A.2d 168 (1984) (noting that "[t]here is no Connecticut case which is dispositive of the particular [unpreserved] issue of this case," as to ru

12016–2016
Madison Hills Ltd. Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc. green
conn · 1994
1 sentence

2016Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc., 35 Conn.App. 81 , 83-84, 90, 644 A.2d 363 (noting that "[o]ur research has revealed no reported cases" that adjudicate the "difficult [unpreserved] question ... presented in this case" as to construction of Uniform Partnership Act [General Statutes § 34-39 et seq. ], and reaching it pursuant to plain error doctrine), cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913 , 648 A.2d 153 (1994) ; Walker v. Lombardo, 2 Conn.App. 266 , 269, 477 A.2d 168 (1984) (noting that "[t]here is no Connecticut case which is dispositive of the particular [unpreserved] issue of this case," as to ru

12016–2016
High Street Associates v. Zisk green
conn · 1994
1 sentence

2016Partnership II v. Madison Hills, Inc., 35 Conn.App. 81 , 83-84, 90, 644 A.2d 363 (noting that "[o]ur research has revealed no reported cases" that adjudicate the "difficult [unpreserved] question ... presented in this case" as to construction of Uniform Partnership Act [General Statutes § 34-39 et seq. ], and reaching it pursuant to plain error doctrine), cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913 , 648 A.2d 153 (1994) ; Walker v. Lombardo, 2 Conn.App. 266 , 269, 477 A.2d 168 (1984) (noting that "[t]here is no Connecticut case which is dispositive of the particular [unpreserved] issue of this case," as to ru

12016–2016
State v. Bowman green
conn · 1999
1 sentence

2000Nevertheless, “because of the serious constitutional ramifications, we examine this issue under the plain error doctrine.” State v. Harris, 54 Conn. App. 18, 25 , 734 A.2d 1027 , cert. denied, 250 Conn. 925 , 738 A.2d 660 (1999), citing Practice Book § 60-5.

12000–2000
State v. Harris green
conn · 1999
1 sentence

2000Nevertheless, “because of the serious constitutional ramifications, we examine this issue under the plain error doctrine.” State v. Harris, 54 Conn. App. 18, 25 , 734 A.2d 1027 , cert. denied, 250 Conn. 925 , 738 A.2d 660 (1999), citing Practice Book § 60-5.

12000–2000
State v. Harris green
connappct · 1999
2 sentences

2000Nevertheless, “because of the serious constitutional ramifications, we examine this issue under the plain error doctrine.” State v. Harris, 54 Conn. App. 18, 25 , 734 A.2d 1027 , cert. denied, 250 Conn. 925 , 738 A.2d 660 (1999), citing Practice Book § 60-5.

2000Nevertheless, “because of the serious constitutional ramifications, we examine this issue under the plain error doctrine.” State v. Harris, 54 Conn. App. 18, 25 , 734 A.2d 1027 , cert. denied, 250 Conn. 925 , 738 A.2d 660 (1999), citing Practice Book § 60-5.

12000–2000

Where else courts name it

IL 350 (1974–2026) TN 48 (1998–2020) OH 26 (1992–2025) MI 20 (2003–2025) NJ 19 (1999–2025) AL 15 (1993–2018) MS 14 (2006–2025) UT 8 (1997–2020) MT 7 (1988–2016) WV 5 (2012–2020) CT 5 (1994–2026) NC 4 (2006–2018) GA 3 (2007–2022) MO 3 (1977–2008) SD 2 (1989–2001) MD 2 (2001–2009) MN 2 (2011–2024) VI 2 (2011–2013) CO 2 (2002–2026)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check