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 3 courts 2002–2013 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. Barrettgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis 2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis 2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis 2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis | 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. Troupe
green
2 sentences2002B The defendant’s second Mstructional claim is that the court improperly failed to focus on the victim’s delay in reporting the sexual assault in violation of his constitutional rights and State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 305 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (en banc). 2002B The defendant’s second Mstructional claim is that the court improperly failed to focus on the victim’s delay in reporting the sexual assault in violation of his constitutional rights and State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 305 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (en banc). | 2 | 2002–2003 |
State v. Golding
green
2 sentences2013On appeal, the defendant requests that we review this claim pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 2013On appeal, the defendant requests that we review this claim pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Spigarolo
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis 2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Chemical Bank v. Paul
green
1 sentence2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Barrett
green
1 sentence2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Morales
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis 2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Morales
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis 2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Spigarolo v. Connecticut
green
1 sentence2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Jungen v. Oregon
green
1 sentence2010See, e.g., State v. Smith, 85 Conn. App. 96, 105 , 856 A.2d 466 (2004) (concluding that defendant failed to demonstrate falsity of victim’s allegation because victim “had made an allegation of sexual abuse by her father . . . was pressured by family members to recant that accusation and . . . her father had pleaded guilty to risk of injury to a child under the Alford doctrine stemming from [the victim’s] allegations”), aff'd, 280 Conn. 285 , 907 A.2d 73 (2006); State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 125 , 694 A.2d 1356 (1997) (victim’s flawed memory insufficient to establish falsity), appeal dis | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Murillo v. Griffin Hospital
green
1 sentence2003This court has “held that [u]nder [State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (en banc)], the state is allowed to introduce any constancy of accusation testimony found necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charges.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vumback, 68 Conn. App. 313, 324 , 791 A.2d 569 , cert. granted on other grounds, 259 Conn. 933 , 793 A.2d 1086 (2002), quoting State v. Williams, 65 Conn. App. 449, 464-65 , 783 A.2d 53 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 927 , 783 A.2d 1032 (2001). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Opotzner v. Bass
green
1 sentence2003This court has “held that [u]nder [State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (en banc)], the state is allowed to introduce any constancy of accusation testimony found necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charges.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vumback, 68 Conn. App. 313, 324 , 791 A.2d 569 , cert. granted on other grounds, 259 Conn. 933 , 793 A.2d 1086 (2002), quoting State v. Williams, 65 Conn. App. 449, 464-65 , 783 A.2d 53 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 927 , 783 A.2d 1032 (2001). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2003This court has “held that [u]nder [State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (en banc)], the state is allowed to introduce any constancy of accusation testimony found necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charges.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vumback, 68 Conn. App. 313, 324 , 791 A.2d 569 , cert. granted on other grounds, 259 Conn. 933 , 793 A.2d 1086 (2002), quoting State v. Williams, 65 Conn. App. 449, 464-65 , 783 A.2d 53 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 927 , 783 A.2d 1032 (2001). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Segal v. Segal
green
1 sentence2003This court has “held that [u]nder [State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (en banc)], the state is allowed to introduce any constancy of accusation testimony found necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charges.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vumback, 68 Conn. App. 313, 324 , 791 A.2d 569 , cert. granted on other grounds, 259 Conn. 933 , 793 A.2d 1086 (2002), quoting State v. Williams, 65 Conn. App. 449, 464-65 , 783 A.2d 53 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 927 , 783 A.2d 1032 (2001). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Vumback
green
2 sentences2003This court has “held that [u]nder [State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (en banc)], the state is allowed to introduce any constancy of accusation testimony found necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charges.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vumback, 68 Conn. App. 313, 324 , 791 A.2d 569 , cert. granted on other grounds, 259 Conn. 933 , 793 A.2d 1086 (2002), quoting State v. Williams, 65 Conn. App. 449, 464-65 , 783 A.2d 53 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 927 , 783 A.2d 1032 (2001). 2003This court has “held that [u]nder [State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (en banc)], the state is allowed to introduce any constancy of accusation testimony found necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charges.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vumback, 68 Conn. App. 313, 324 , 791 A.2d 569 , cert. granted on other grounds, 259 Conn. 933 , 793 A.2d 1086 (2002), quoting State v. Williams, 65 Conn. App. 449, 464-65 , 783 A.2d 53 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 927 , 783 A.2d 1032 (2001). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2003This court has “held that [u]nder [State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (en banc)], the state is allowed to introduce any constancy of accusation testimony found necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charges.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vumback, 68 Conn. App. 313, 324 , 791 A.2d 569 , cert. granted on other grounds, 259 Conn. 933 , 793 A.2d 1086 (2002), quoting State v. Williams, 65 Conn. App. 449, 464-65 , 783 A.2d 53 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 927 , 783 A.2d 1032 (2001). 2003This court has “held that [u]nder [State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996) (en banc)], the state is allowed to introduce any constancy of accusation testimony found necessary to associate the victim’s complaint with the pending charges.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vumback, 68 Conn. App. 313, 324 , 791 A.2d 569 , cert. granted on other grounds, 259 Conn. 933 , 793 A.2d 1086 (2002), quoting State v. Williams, 65 Conn. App. 449, 464-65 , 783 A.2d 53 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 927 , 783 A.2d 1032 (2001). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Henderson v. Woolley
green
1 sentence2002General Statutes § 52-572c ." Also, as the plaintiffs point out another exception was recognized in Henderson v. Wooley , 230 Conn. 472 , 486 (1994) which held "the doctrine does not bar a suit by a child for sexual abuse, sexual assault or sexual exploitation by a parent." The business enterprise exception recognized in Dzenutis and the sexual assault exception referred to in Henderson seem to be, as those courts indicate at least in part subsets of a more generally recognized exception noted in the case law, the so-called "public duty" exception. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.