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 2 courts 1986–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Golding
green
2 sentences2015We find no occasion to turn to the federal law regarding plain error in light of our own precedents. 9 State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 10 In its appellate brief, the state maintains that the claim raised by the defendant on appeal is not reviewable under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 2015We find no occasion to turn to the federal law regarding plain error in light of our own precedents. 9 State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 10 In its appellate brief, the state maintains that the claim raised by the defendant on appeal is not reviewable under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). | 2 | 1991–2015 |
State v. Lewis
neutral
2 sentences2003Although the state maintains that defense counsel’s remarks during closing argument invited or opened the door for the court to inform the jury of Carlton Martin’s conviction, we note that the “opening the door” or “invited error” doctrine “cannot ... be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lewis, 67 Conn. App. 643, 653 , 789 A.2d 519 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 938 , 808 A.2d 1133 (2002); see footnote 15. 2003Although the state maintains that defense counsel’s remarks during closing argument invited or opened the door for the court to inform the jury of Carlton Martin’s conviction, we note that the “opening the door” or “invited error” doctrine “cannot ... be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lewis, 67 Conn. App. 643, 653 , 789 A.2d 519 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 938 , 808 A.2d 1133 (2002); see footnote 15. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2003Although the state maintains that defense counsel’s remarks during closing argument invited or opened the door for the court to inform the jury of Carlton Martin’s conviction, we note that the “opening the door” or “invited error” doctrine “cannot ... be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lewis, 67 Conn. App. 643, 653 , 789 A.2d 519 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 938 , 808 A.2d 1133 (2002); see footnote 15. 2003Although the state maintains that defense counsel’s remarks during closing argument invited or opened the door for the court to inform the jury of Carlton Martin’s conviction, we note that the “opening the door” or “invited error” doctrine “cannot ... be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lewis, 67 Conn. App. 643, 653 , 789 A.2d 519 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 938 , 808 A.2d 1133 (2002); see footnote 15. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Bordenkircher v. Hayes
green
1 sentence2001Relying on the fact that the defendant entered his plea of nolo contendere and was sentenced to nine years in prison as a direct result of plea discussions conducted by the trial court, the state maintains that our analysis of the defendant’s due process claim is governed by Bordenkircher v. Hayes, supra, 434 U.S. 357 , which sanctions the government’s practice of threatening increased charges during the course of plea negotiations and making good on the threat if the defendant refuses to enter a plea. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1986A motion to dismiss, predicated on a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L. 1986A motion to dismiss, predicated on a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.