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 1921–2000 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. Belangergreen2 sentences1982See State v. Belanger, 148 Conn. 57, 64 , 167 A.2d 245 (1961). 1982See State v. Belanger, 148 Conn. 57, 64 , 167 A.2d 245 (1961). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Storace v. Mariano
green
1 sentence2000In Storace v. Mariano, 35 Conn. Sup. 28 (1978) the court found that based upon language in the statute, the ten day limitation for scheduling was mandatory. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Spatafore v. Yale University
green
2 sentences2000Larson, [Workmen’s Compensation (1996)], § 22.11, p. 5-92.” Spatafore v. Yale University, 239 Conn. 408, 421-22 , 684 A.2d 1155 (1996). “[W]e have moved beyond a mere employer benefit test to one including employer approval or acquiescence when the employer sanctioned activity regularly occurs on the premises; McNamara v. Hamden, supra, 176 Conn. 554 -55 . . . .” Spatafore v. Yale University, supra, 239 Conn. 422 n.13 . 2000Larson, [Workmen’s Compensation (1996)], § 22.11, p. 5-92.” Spatafore v. Yale University, 239 Conn. 408, 421-22 , 684 A.2d 1155 (1996). “[W]e have moved beyond a mere employer benefit test to one including employer approval or acquiescence when the employer sanctioned activity regularly occurs on the premises; McNamara v. Hamden, supra, 176 Conn. 554 -55 . . . .” Spatafore v. Yale University, supra, 239 Conn. 422 n.13 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Saffle v. Parks
green
2 sentences1991Ed. 2d 256 (1989), and Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484 , 110 S. Ct. 1257 , 108 L. 1991Ed. 2d 256 (1989), and Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484 , 110 S. Ct. 1257 , 108 L. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Penry v. Lynaugh
red
2 sentences1991When such writ is applied for, notice thereof, and of the time and place of hearing thereon, shall be given to the state’s attorney of the county in which the arrest is made and in which the accused is in custody, and to the agent of the demanding state.” The habeas court in its memorandum of decision also extensively discussed the cases of Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 , 109 S. Ct. 2934 , 106 L. 1991When such writ is applied for, notice thereof, and of the time and place of hearing thereon, shall be given to the state’s attorney of the county in which the arrest is made and in which the accused is in custody, and to the agent of the demanding state.” The habeas court in its memorandum of decision also extensively discussed the cases of Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 , 109 S. Ct. 2934 , 106 L. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Sabourin v. J. S. Lippe
green
2 sentences1921“The member must be given notice of the proceeding for suspension or expulsion, the charges against him, and the time and place of hearing.” 7 Corpus Juris, 1101; Sabourin v. Lippe, 195 Mass. 470 , 81 N. E. 282 ; 49 L. 1921“The member must be given notice of the proceeding for suspension or expulsion, the charges against him, and the time and place of hearing.” 7 Corpus Juris, 1101; Sabourin v. Lippe, 195 Mass. 470 , 81 N. E. 282 ; 49 L. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.