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 1 courts 2009–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Laudano v. City of New Havengreen2 sentences2016See Laudano v. New Haven, 58 Conn. App. 819 , 822–23, 755 A.2d 907 (2000). 2016See Laudano v. New Haven, 58 Conn. App. 819 , 822–23, 755 A.2d 907 (2000). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ezequiel R.green2 sentences2018Statements of others, including the interviewers, may be relevant to show the circumstances." 11 (Emphasis in original.) State v. Abraham , supra, 181 Conn. App. at 713 , 187 A.3d 445 ; see, e.g., State v. Ezequiel R. , 184 Conn. App. 55 , 68-71, 194 A.3d 873 (2018) (video recording of interview admissible under medical treatment exception based on, inter alia, circumstances leading up to interview, location where interview took place, and interviewer's statements to victim during interview). 2018Statements of others, including the interviewers, may be relevant to show the circumstances." 11 (Emphasis in original.) State v. Abraham , supra, 181 Conn. App. at 713 , 187 A.3d 445 ; see, e.g., State v. Ezequiel R. , 184 Conn. App. 55 , 68-71, 194 A.3d 873 (2018) (video recording of interview admissible under medical treatment exception based on, inter alia, circumstances leading up to interview, location where interview took place, and interviewer's statements to victim during interview). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 315529green1 sentence2009The court noted that the general starting point for the calculation of attorney’s fees is the lodestar analysis, and, thereafter, the court is permitted to consider the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974). | 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. Abraham
green
2 sentences2018Statements of others, including the interviewers, may be relevant to show the circumstances." 11 (Emphasis in original.) State v. Abraham , supra, 181 Conn. App. at 713 , 187 A.3d 445 ; see, e.g., State v. Ezequiel R. , 184 Conn. App. 55 , 68-71, 194 A.3d 873 (2018) (video recording of interview admissible under medical treatment exception based on, inter alia, circumstances leading up to interview, location where interview took place, and interviewer's statements to victim during interview). 2018Statements of others, including the interviewers, may be relevant to show the circumstances." 11 (Emphasis in original.) State v. Abraham , supra, 181 Conn. App. at 713 , 187 A.3d 445 ; see, e.g., State v. Ezequiel R. , 184 Conn. App. 55 , 68-71, 194 A.3d 873 (2018) (video recording of interview admissible under medical treatment exception based on, inter alia, circumstances leading up to interview, location where interview took place, and interviewer's statements to victim during interview). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012In its memorandum of decision granting the plaintiff attorney’s fees, the court determined, as a threshold matter, “whether to calculate the award of attorney’s fees based on the terms of the plaintiffs contingency fee agreement or based on a lodestar calculation . . . .” The court first determined that the holding of Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., supra, 265 Conn. 210 , applied to the present case and therefore concluded that it would award attorney’s fees pursuant to the plaintiffs agreement because the agreement, by its terms, was reasonable. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.