party claiming plain error in Connecticut

5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2026 3 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 (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Rodriguezgreen conn · 2020 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 , 266 n.69, 828 A.2d 64 (2003); see also State v. Rodriguez, 337 Conn. 175 , 189 sense of not debatable. . . .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Carlson green connappct · 2024 2 sentences 2026Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024). “[W] e will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 820 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017). 2025Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insuffi- cient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024).	2	2025–2026
Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc. green conn · 2003 2 sentences 2024Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 , 266 n.69, 828 A.2d 64 (2003); see also State v. Rodriguez, 337 Conn. 175 , 189 sense of not debatable. . . . 2024Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210 , 266 n.69, 828 A.2d 64 (2003); see also State v. Rodriguez, 337 Conn. 175 , 189 sense of not debatable. . . .	2	2008–2024
Sousa v. Sousa green conn · 2017 1 sentence 2026Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024). “[W] e will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 820 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017).	1	2026–2026
Thorpe v. Comm'r of Corr. green conn · 2017 1 sentence 2026Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024). “[W] e will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 820 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017).	1	2026–2026
State v. Toro green connappct · 2017 2 sentences 2026Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024). “[W] e will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 820 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017). 2026Indeed, a mere conclusory assertion of plain error is insufficient to allow this court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim under that doctrine.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024). “[W] e will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 820 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017).	1	2026–2026
Pestey v. Cushman green conn · 2002 1 sentence 2003A party claiming plain error must engage in a separate analysis under that doctrine to “demonstrate that plain error has occurred under the circumstances of [the] case.” Id.	1	2003–2003

Where else courts name it

TN 34 (2010–2024) OH 19 (2007–2020) CT 5 (2003–2026) WY 3 (1991–2007) VT 2 (2019–2023)

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