5 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2016 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. Williamsgreen2 sentences2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriguez-Romangreen2 sentences2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 | 1 | 1 |
Dougan v. Dougangreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Dougan v. Dougan, 301 Conn. 361, 372 , 21 A.3d 791 (2011) (‘‘[j]udicial estoppel prevents a party in a legal proceeding from taking a position contrary to a position the party has taken in an earlier proceeding’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2015See, e.g., Dougan v. Dougan, 301 Conn. 361, 372 , 21 A.3d 791 (2011) (‘‘[j]udicial estoppel prevents a party in a legal proceeding from taking a position contrary to a position the party has taken in an earlier proceeding’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
Adelphia Recovery Trust v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.green1 sentence2015Like waiver, the judicial estoppel doctrine ‘‘depends heavily on the specific factual context . . . before the court.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Adelphia Recovery Trust v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 748 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
John Bates v. Long Island Railroad Companygreen2 sentences2009Bates v. Long Island [Railroad] Co., 997 F.2d 1028, 1038 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 992 , 114 S.Ct. 550 , 126 L.Ed.2d 452 (1993)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) SKW Real Estate Ltd. 2009Bates v. Long Island [Railroad] Co., 997 F.2d 1028, 1038 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 992 , 114 S. Ct. 550 , 126 L. | 1 | 1 |
SKW Real Estate Ltd. Partnership v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.green2 sentences2001SKW Real Estate Ltd. v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc ., 56 Conn. App. 1 , 8 , 741 A.2d 4 (1999) ("We do not have to determine whether Connecticut recognizes the doctrine of judicial estoppel.") Even if Connecticut recognizes the doctrine of judicial estoppel, it would be unavailing to the defendants. 2001SKW Real Estate Ltd. v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc ., 56 Conn. App. 1 , 8 , 741 A.2d 4 (1999) ("We do not have to determine whether Connecticut recognizes the doctrine of judicial estoppel.") Even if Connecticut recognizes the doctrine of judicial estoppel, it would be unavailing to the defendants. | 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. Kitchens
green
2 sentences2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Ebron
green
2 sentences2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Madigosky
green
2 sentences2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Griggs
green
2 sentences2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Hargrove
green
2 sentences2016The irony—and the fundamental slight-of-hand in Kitchens—is that it is precisely those elements of a true waiver, which exempt it from Golding review, that are lacking in a so-called Kitchens waiver. 11 ‘‘The doctrine of judicial estoppel . . . advances notions of fair play by precluding a party from inducing judicial action by taking one legal position and then taking a contrary position later to achieve further advan- tage over the same adverse party.’’ State v. Hargrove, 48 Kan. 2016"The doctrine of judicial estoppel ... advances notions of fair play by precluding a party from inducing judicial action by taking one legal position and then taking a contrary position later to achieve further advantage over the same adverse party." State v. Hargrove , 48 Kan.App.2d 522 , 548-49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hurwitz v. Perales, Commissioner, New York State Department of Social Services
green
2 sentences2009Bates v. Long Island [Railroad] Co., 997 F.2d 1028, 1038 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 992 , 114 S. Ct. 550 , 126 L. 2009Bates v. Long Island [Railroad] Co., 997 F.2d 1028, 1038 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 992 , 114 S. Ct. 550 , 126 L. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Heartland Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Brisco Enterprises, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2009Bates v. Long Island [Railroad] Co., 997 F.2d 1028, 1038 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 992 , 114 S.Ct. 550 , 126 L.Ed.2d 452 (1993)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) SKW Real Estate Ltd. 2009Bates v. Long Island [Railroad] Co., 997 F.2d 1028, 1038 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 992 , 114 S. Ct. 550 , 126 L. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.