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 2005–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
DARTMOOR CONDOMINIUM ASS'N, INC. v. Guarcogreen2 sentences2022When an objection raises the claim, however, that the facts found lack evidentiary support, the court must review all of the evidence that was before the fact finder to make an informed disposition of the objection.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) Id., 399; see also Dartmoor Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Guarco, 111 Conn. App. 566 , 572-73, 960 A.2d 1076 (2008) (holding that trial court’s in camera review of party’s objection to attorney fact finder’s report did not satisfy Banks standard). 2022When an objection raises the claim, however, that the facts found lack evidentiary support, the court must review all of the evidence that was before the fact finder to make an informed disposition of the objection.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) Id., 399; see also Dartmoor Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Guarco, 111 Conn. App. 566 , 572-73, 960 A.2d 1076 (2008) (holding that trial court’s in camera review of party’s objection to attorney fact finder’s report did not satisfy Banks standard). | 1 | 1 |
Dent v. Lovejoygreen1 sentence2010See Traggis v. Shawmut Bank Connecticut, N.A., supra, 72 Conn. App. 264 ; see also Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Assn. of Stratford, Inc., 85 Conn. App. 663, 680 , 858 A.2d 860 (2004) (“[f]or this court to . . . consider [a] claim on the basis of a specific legal ground *47 not raised during trial would amount to trial by ambuscade, unfair both to the [court] and to the opposing party” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 912 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Ass'n of Stratford, Inc.green1 sentence2010See Traggis v. Shawmut Bank Connecticut, N.A., supra, 72 Conn. App. 264 ; see also Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Assn. of Stratford, Inc., 85 Conn. App. 663, 680 , 858 A.2d 860 (2004) (“[f]or this court to . . . consider [a] claim on the basis of a specific legal ground *47 not raised during trial would amount to trial by ambuscade, unfair both to the [court] and to the opposing party” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 912 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Ass'n of Stratford, Inc.green2 sentences2010See Traggis v. Shawmut Bank Connecticut, N.A., supra, 72 Conn. App. 264 ; see also Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Assn. of Stratford, Inc., 85 Conn. App. 663, 680 , 858 A.2d 860 (2004) (“[f]or this court to . . . consider [a] claim on the basis of a specific legal ground *47 not raised during trial would amount to trial by ambuscade, unfair both to the [court] and to the opposing party” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 912 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005). 2010See Traggis v. Shawmut Bank Connecticut, N.A., supra, 72 Conn. App. 264 ; see also Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Assn. of Stratford, Inc., 85 Conn. App. 663, 680 , 858 A.2d 860 (2004) (“[f]or this court to . . . consider [a] claim on the basis of a specific legal ground *47 not raised during trial would amount to trial by ambuscade, unfair both to the [court] and to the opposing party” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 912 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Shapero v. Mercedegreen2 sentences2005See Shapero v. Mercede, 66 Conn. App. 343, 350 , 784 A.2d 435 (2001). 2005See Shapero v. Mercede, 66 Conn. App. 343, 350 , 784 A.2d 435 (2001). | 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. Floyd
green
1 sentence2024This court declined to revisit its prior ruling on the petitioner’s motion for review or to take judicial notice of certain materials that were never submitted to the habeas court: the petitioner’s arguments on appeal were nearly identical to those he made before this court in his motion for review, and this court has made clear that it will order a hearing pursuant to State v. Floyd ( 253 Conn. 700 ) only in the unusual situation in which a defendant was precluded from perfecting the record due to new information obtained after judgment; moreover, if this court were to grant the petitioner’s | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Adamo v. Adamo
green
2 sentences2011“A finding of contempt is a question of fact, and our standard of review is to determine whether the court abused its discretion in failing to find that the actions or inactions of the [plaintiff] were in contempt of a court order.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Adamo v. Adamo, 123 Conn. App. 38, 49 , 1 A.3d 221 , cert. denied, 298 Conn. 916 , 4 A.3d 830 (2010). 2011“A finding of contempt is a question of fact, and our standard of review is to determine whether the court abused its discretion in failing to find that the actions or inactions of the [plaintiff] were in contempt of a court order.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Adamo v. Adamo, 123 Conn. App. 38, 49 , 1 A.3d 221 , cert. denied, 298 Conn. 916 , 4 A.3d 830 (2010). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Adamo v. Adamo
green
2 sentences2011“A finding of contempt is a question of fact, and our standard of review is to determine whether the court abused its discretion in failing to find that the actions or inactions of the [plaintiff] were in contempt of a court order.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Adamo v. Adamo, 123 Conn. App. 38, 49 , 1 A.3d 221 , cert. denied, 298 Conn. 916 , 4 A.3d 830 (2010). 2011“A finding of contempt is a question of fact, and our standard of review is to determine whether the court abused its discretion in failing to find that the actions or inactions of the [plaintiff] were in contempt of a court order.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Adamo v. Adamo, 123 Conn. App. 38, 49 , 1 A.3d 221 , cert. denied, 298 Conn. 916 , 4 A.3d 830 (2010). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.