5 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1976–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Horton v. Californiagreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 134, 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)." "As employed in the statute," the court continued, "the phrase is used in the larger clause, 'while such other person is not in plain view.' It is clear that the other person here is the person being photographed or depicted in the video. 2016See, e.g., Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 134, 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)." "As employed in the statute," the court continued, "the phrase is used in the larger clause, 'while such other person is not in plain view.' It is clear that the other person here is the person being photographed or depicted in the video. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pet Car Products, Inc. v. Barnett
green
2 sentences1992"This specific rule with respect to zoning authorities must be placed in context as one aspect of the larger rule, explained in Pet Car Products Inc. v. Barnett, 150 Conn. 42 , 53 , 184 A.2d 797 , that "[i]n general, estoppel may not be invoked against the government or a public agency functioning in its governmental capacity. 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, 138. 1992"This specific rule with respect to zoning authorities must be placed in context as one aspect of the larger rule, explained in Pet Car Products Inc. v. Barnett, 150 Conn. 42 , 53 , 184 A.2d 797 , that "[i]n general, estoppel may not be invoked against the government or a public agency functioning in its governmental capacity. 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, 138. | 2 | 1976–1992 |
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. v. Cotrone
green
2 sentences2006We note that “the issue of whether the parties to a contract have agreed to arbitration implicates their intention, an issue of fact for the court’s determination”; Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. v. Cotrone, 81 Conn. App. 755, 758 , 841 A.2d 1199 (2004); which we will review under the clearly erroneous standard. 2006We note that “the issue of whether the parties to a contract have agreed to arbitration implicates their intention, an issue of fact for the court’s determination”; Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. v. Cotrone, 81 Conn. App. 755, 758 , 841 A.2d 1199 (2004); which we will review under the clearly erroneous standard. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc.
green
1 sentence1991In Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc., 170 Conn. 344 (1976), the court said, "[t]his specific rule with respect to zoning authorities must be placed in context as one aspect of the larger rule . . . that `in general, estoppel may not be invoked against the government or a public agency functioning in its governmental capacity. 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, 138.'". | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.