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 2 courts 1932–1988 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Widman v. Kearns
neutral
2 sentences1950Widman v. Kearns, 96 Conn. 254, 258 , 114 Atl. 77 . 1950Widman v. Kearns, 96 Conn. 254, 258 , 114 Atl. 77 . | 2 | 1932–1950 |
United States v. United States Smelting Refining & Mining Co.
green
2 sentences1988“The rule of the law of the case is a rule of practice, based upon sound policy that when an issue is once litigated and decided, that should be the end of the matter.” United States v. U. S. Smelting Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 , 70 S. Ct. 537 , 94 L. 1988“The rule of the law of the case is a rule of practice, based upon sound policy that when an issue is once litigated and decided, that should be the end of the matter.” United States v. U. S. Smelting Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 , 70 S. Ct. 537 , 94 L. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Daniels
green
2 sentences1988The majority opinion justifies its refusal to resolve this issue upon the doctrine of the law of the case as applied to our remand in Daniels I, which ordered that “[i]f the trial court intended to exercise its authority under General Statutes § 54-56 to dismiss the death penalty phase of the proceeding and refused to grant a mistrial for this reason, it should say so explicitly to provide a basis for review by this court.” State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 402-403 , 542 A.2d 306 (1988) (Daniels I). 1988The majority opinion justifies its refusal to resolve this issue upon the doctrine of the law of the case as applied to our remand in Daniels I, which ordered that “[i]f the trial court intended to exercise its authority under General Statutes § 54-56 to dismiss the death penalty phase of the proceeding and refused to grant a mistrial for this reason, it should say so explicitly to provide a basis for review by this court.” State v. Daniels, 207 Conn. 374, 402-403 , 542 A.2d 306 (1988) (Daniels I). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
California v. Tyberg
green
1 sentence1986State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 , 757 n.12, 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. , 107 S. Ct. 597 , 93 L. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Connecticut v. Whelan
green
1 sentence1986State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 , 757 n.12, 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. , 107 S. Ct. 597 , 93 L. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Whelan
green
2 sentences1986State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 , 757 n.12, 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. , 107 S. Ct. 597 , 93 L. 1986State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 , 757 n.12, 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. , 107 S. Ct. 597 , 93 L. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Saracino
green
2 sentences1980State v. Saracino, 178 Conn. 416, 419 , 423 A.2d 102 (1979). 1980State v. Saracino, 178 Conn. 416, 419 , 423 A.2d 102 (1979). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.