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.
269 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2026 33 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. Hernandezgreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 204 Conn. 377 , 394 n.9, 528 A.2d 794 (1987); State v. Redente, 19 Conn. App. 521 , 531 n.5, 563 A.2d 1365 (1989); State v. Thompson, 17 Conn. App. 490 , 498 n.5, 554 A.2d 297 , cert. denied, 211 Conn. 803 , 559 A.2d 1136 (1989). 1994See, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 204 Conn. 377 , 394 n.9, 528 A.2d 794 (1987); State v. Redente, 19 Conn. App. 521 , 531 n.5, 563 A.2d 1365 (1989); State v. Thompson, 17 Conn. App. 490 , 498 n.5, 554 A.2d 297 , cert. denied, 211 Conn. 803 , 559 A.2d 1136 (1989). | 8 | 8 |
State v. Geislergreen2 sentences2025The petitioner, however, did not brief a separate state constitutional claim in accordance with State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672 , 684-86, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992), or argue that the state constitution provides him greater protection than does the federal constitution. 2025The petitioner, however, did not brief a separate state constitutional claim in accordance with State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672 , 684-86, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992), or argue that the state constitution provides him greater protection than does the federal constitution. | 6 | 61 |
State v. Simpsongreen2 sentences2015See State v. Simpson, 286 Conn. 634 , 651 n.17, 945 A.2d 449 (2008).’’ State v. Stuart, 113 Conn. App. 541 , 547 n.2, 967 A.2d 532 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 922 , 980 A.2d 914 (2009); see also State v. Johnson, 288 Conn. 236 , 244 n.14, 951 A.2d 1257 (2008). 6 To protect the privacy interest of the members of the jury, we refer to them by their first and last initials. 2015See State v. Simpson, 286 Conn. 634 , 651 n.17, 945 A.2d 449 (2008).’’ State v. Stuart, 113 Conn. App. 541 , 547 n.2, 967 A.2d 532 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 922 , 980 A.2d 914 (2009); see also State v. Johnson, 288 Conn. 236 , 244 n.14, 951 A.2d 1257 (2008). 6 To protect the privacy interest of the members of the jury, we refer to them by their first and last initials. | 6 | 6 |
State v. Sinvilgreen2 sentences2012See State v. Sinvil, 270 Conn. 516 , 518 n.1, 853 A.2d 105 (2004) (“We have repeatedly apprised litigants that we will not entertain a state constitutional claim unless the defendant has provided an independent analysis under the particular provisions of the state constitution at issue. . . . 2012See State v. Sinvil, 270 Conn. 516 , 518 n.1, 853 A.2d 105 (2004) (“We have repeatedly apprised litigants that we will not entertain a state constitutional claim unless the defendant has provided an independent analysis under the particular provisions of the state constitution at issue. . . . | 5 | 16 |
State v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Bennett, 324 Conn. 744 , 748 n.1, 155 A.3d 188 (2017). 2021See State v. Bennett, 324 Conn. 744 , 748 n.1, 155 A.3d 188 (2017). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Konogreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. Kono, 324 Conn. 80, 123 , 152 A.3d 1 (2016) (this court ‘‘turn[s] first to the state constitutional claim when the issue is unsettled under the federal constitution or, if it is settled under the federal constitution, when the defendant is not entitled to relief thereun- der’’). 2025See, e.g., State v. Kono, 324 Conn. 80, 123 , 152 A.3d 1 (2016) (this court ‘‘turn[s] first to the state constitutional claim when the issue is unsettled under the federal constitution or, if it is settled under the federal constitution, when the defendant is not entitled to relief thereun- der’’). | 3 | 7 |
State v. Eadygreen2 sentences2002See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. 2002See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. | 3 | 4 |
Eady v. Connecticutgreen2 sentences2002See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. 2002See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. | 3 | 4 |
Osorio de Escobar v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. 2001See State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431 , 435 n.6, 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2014See State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711 , 721–22, 631 A.2d 288 (1993) (‘‘We have repeatedly apprised litigants that we will not entertain a state constitutional claim unless the defendant has provided an independent analysis under the particular provi- sions of the state constitution at issue. . . . 2014See State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711 , 721–22, 631 A.2d 288 (1993) (‘‘We have repeatedly apprised litigants that we will not entertain a state constitutional claim unless the defendant has provided an independent analysis under the particular provi- sions of the state constitution at issue. . . . | 2 | 10 |
State v. Randolphgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Randolph, 284 Conn. 328 , 375 n.12, 933 A.2d 1158 (2007) (‘‘We have repeatedly apprised litigants that we will not entertain a state constitutional claim unless the defendant has provided an independent analysis under the particular provisions of the state constitution at issue. . . . 2015See State v. Randolph, 284 Conn. 328 , 375 n.12, 933 A.2d 1158 (2007) (‘‘We have repeatedly apprised litigants that we will not entertain a state constitutional claim unless the defendant has provided an independent analysis under the particular provisions of the state constitution at issue. . . . | 2 | 7 |
State v. Moralesgreen2 sentences2010Most significantly, the defendant relies on this court’s interpretation of that provision’s due process clause in State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585 (1995), as well as Montgomery v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind. App.), transfer denied, 822 N.E.2d 976 (Ind. 2004), and People v. Perez, 255 Mich. App. 703 , 662 N.W.2d 446 , vacated in part on other grounds, 469 Mich. 415 , 670 N.W.2d 655 (2003), in support of a state constitutional rule requiring prosecutors to provide criminal defendants with prior notice when they intend to release a witness from subpoena, regardless of whether the p 2010Most significantly, the defendant relies on this court’s interpretation of that provision’s due process clause in State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585 (1995), as well as Montgomery v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind. App.), transfer denied, 822 N.E.2d 976 (Ind. 2004), and People v. Perez, 255 Mich. App. 703 , 662 N.W.2d 446 , vacated in part on other grounds, 469 Mich. 415 , 670 N.W.2d 655 (2003), in support of a state constitutional rule requiring prosecutors to provide criminal defendants with prior notice when they intend to release a witness from subpoena, regardless of whether the p | 2 | 5 |
State v. Saturnogreen2 sentences2018We therefore conclude that the defendant's state constitutional claim is reviewable, but fails under Golding 's third prong. 10 Article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution provides: "The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches or seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any persons or things, shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation." 11 "A search for purposes of the [f]ourth [a]mendment occurs when a reasonable expectation of privacy i 2018We therefore conclude that the defendant's state constitutional claim is reviewable, but fails under Golding 's third prong. 10 Article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution provides: "The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches or seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any persons or things, shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation." 11 "A search for purposes of the [f]ourth [a]mendment occurs when a reasonable expectation of privacy i | 2 | 4 |
State v. Pierregreen2 sentences2007See State v. Pierre, 277 Conn. 42 , 74 n.12, 890 A.2d 474 (“We have repeatedly apprised litigants that we will not entertain a state constitutional claim unless the defendant has provided an independent analysis under the particular provisions of the state constitution at issue. . . . 2007See State v. Pierre, 277 Conn. 42 , 74 n.12, 890 A.2d 474 (“We have repeatedly apprised litigants that we will not entertain a state constitutional claim unless the defendant has provided an independent analysis under the particular provisions of the state constitution at issue. . . . | 2 | 4 |
| State v. Patelgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Glanz v. Commissioner of Motor Vehiclesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Armando Correa-Venturagreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Larry Dwight Jaynes and April Marie Jaynesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 2 | 2 |
| Luce v. United Technologies Corp.green | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Pindergreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. DeJesusgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Williamsred | 2 | 2 |
State v. Goldinggreen2 sentences2022Although review under State v. Golding ( 213 Conn. 233 ) is available in habeas appeals for unpreserved constitutional claims that could have been raised in the habeas petition or which challenge the actions of the habeas court, such review was unavailable in the petitioner’s circumstances, as he did not distinctly raise a state constitutional claim in his habeas petition or invoke the protections of the state constitution during the hearing on his motion for immediate release; moreover, despite the petitioner’s assertion that the habeas court should have construed his motion to include a stat 2014Because the issue of the appropriateness of the existing rule is not directly presented by this case, how- ever, I concur in the judgment of the majority. 1 In likely recognition that an unpreserved Holliman claim, which is evi- dentiary in nature, would fail under the second prong of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), the defendant has requested that this court fashion a new state constitutional rule governing the admissi- bility of allegedly unduly suggestive identifications that did not result from state action, and then to apply that rule to his case. | 1 | 15 |
State v. Joycegreen2 sentences2012When a party fails to analyze these factors separately and distinctly, "[w]e have made clear that ... we are not bound to review the state constitutional claim." Id., at 16 , 639 A.2d 1007 . 2012When a party fails to analyze these factors separately and distinctly, "[w]e have made clear that ... we are not bound to review the state constitutional claim." Id., at 16 , 639 A.2d 1007 . | 1 | 5 |
State v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences1994See State v. Hamilton, 228 Conn. 234 , 246 n.10, 636 A.2d 760 (1994); State v. Campbell, 224 Conn. 168 , 181 n.12, 617 A.2d 889 (1992), cert. denied, U.S. , 113 S. Ct. 2365 , 124 L. 1994See State v. Hamilton, 228 Conn. 234 , 246 n.10, 636 A.2d 760 (1994); State v. Campbell, 224 Conn. 168 , 181 n.12, 617 A.2d 889 (1992), cert. denied, U.S. , 113 S. Ct. 2365 , 124 L. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Lockhartgreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC, supra, 260 Conn. 715 (recognizing policy-making role of legis- lature in context of sex discrimination); see also Fay v. Merrill, 338 Conn. 1 , 51-52, 256 A.3d 622 (2021) (‘‘[g]iven the reasonable policy concerns that support the parties’ respective state constitutional arguments, in interpreting our state’s constitution, we must defer to the legislature’s primary responsibility in pronouncing the public policy of our state’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Lockhart, 298 Conn. 537, 574 , 4 A.3d 1176 (2010) (The court decli 2022See, e.g., Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC, supra, 260 Conn. 715 (recognizing policy-making role of legis- lature in context of sex discrimination); see also Fay v. Merrill, 338 Conn. 1 , 51-52, 256 A.3d 622 (2021) (‘‘[g]iven the reasonable policy concerns that support the parties’ respective state constitutional arguments, in interpreting our state’s constitution, we must defer to the legislature’s primary responsibility in pronouncing the public policy of our state’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Lockhart, 298 Conn. 537, 574 , 4 A.3d 1176 (2010) (The court decli | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Jolygreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Lewisgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Lammegreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Nashgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Gideon v. Wainwrightgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Vegagreen | 1 | 2 |
| Burgos Vega v. Connecticutgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Jaffe v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen | 1 | 2 |
| Miranda v. Arizonagreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Genottigreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Redente
neutral
2 sentences1994See, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 204 Conn. 377 , 394 n.9, 528 A.2d 794 (1987); State v. Redente, 19 Conn. App. 521 , 531 n.5, 563 A.2d 1365 (1989); State v. Thompson, 17 Conn. App. 490 , 498 n.5, 554 A.2d 297 , cert. denied, 211 Conn. 803 , 559 A.2d 1136 (1989). 1994See, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 204 Conn. 377 , 394 n.9, 528 A.2d 794 (1987); State v. Redente, 19 Conn. App. 521 , 531 n.5, 563 A.2d 1365 (1989); State v. Thompson, 17 Conn. App. 490 , 498 n.5, 554 A.2d 297 , cert. denied, 211 Conn. 803 , 559 A.2d 1136 (1989). | 8 | 1991–1994 |
State v. Marsala
green
2 sentences2026See Barros v. Barros, 309 Conn. 499 , 507 n.9, 72 A.3d 367 (2013) (“we will not entertain a state constitutional claim unless the defendant has provided an independent analysis under the particular provisions of the state constitution at issue” (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Griffin, 217 Conn. App. 358 , 363 n.3, 288 A.3d 653 (“[T]o the extent that the defendant has attempted to advance such a state constitutional claim on appeal, he has not adequately briefed it pursuant to the strictures of State v. Geisler, [supra, 222 Conn. 684-85]. 2014Golding’’; State v. Ramos, supra, 261 Conn. 172 n.16 ; even the most stringent affirmative request requirement did not generally relieve the pru- dent appellate prosecutor from responding to the merits of unpreserved constitutional claims. 18 We disagree with the state’s argument that the approach to the affirma- tive request requirement adopted by the en banc Appellate Court in the present case has the salutary effect of being consistent with this court’s approach ‘‘in cases in which a party seeks review of a state constitutional claim’’ under State v. Geisler, supra, 222 Conn. 684-85. | 5 | 1992–2026 |
State v. Geisler
green
2 sentences1995Our ‘declination, however, does not mean that we are not able to review [a state constitutional claim] if we choose to do so.’ State v. Geisler, 25 Conn. App. 282 , 283-84 n.2, 594 A.2d 985 (1991), aff'd, 222 Conn. 672 , 610 A.2d 1225 (1992).” State v. Streater, 36 Conn. App. 345 , 350 n.6, 650 A.2d 632 (1994), cert. denied, 232 Conn. 908 , 653 A.2d 195 (1995). 1995Our ‘declination, however, does not mean that we are not able to review [a state constitutional claim] if we choose to do so.’ State v. Geisler, 25 Conn. App. 282 , 283-84 n.2, 594 A.2d 985 (1991), aff'd, 222 Conn. 672 , 610 A.2d 1225 (1992).” State v. Streater, 36 Conn. App. 345 , 350 n.6, 650 A.2d 632 (1994), cert. denied, 232 Conn. 908 , 653 A.2d 195 (1995). | 5 | 1992–1995 |
State v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1994See, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 204 Conn. 377 , 394 n.9, 528 A.2d 794 (1987); State v. Redente, 19 Conn. App. 521 , 531 n.5, 563 A.2d 1365 (1989); State v. Thompson, 17 Conn. App. 490 , 498 n.5, 554 A.2d 297 , cert. denied, 211 Conn. 803 , 559 A.2d 1136 (1989). 1994See, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 204 Conn. 377 , 394 n.9, 528 A.2d 794 (1987); State v. Redente, 19 Conn. App. 521 , 531 n.5, 563 A.2d 1365 (1989); State v. Thompson, 17 Conn. App. 490 , 498 n.5, 554 A.2d 297 , cert. denied, 211 Conn. 803 , 559 A.2d 1136 (1989). | 5 | 1991–1994 |
State v. Thompson
neutral
2 sentences1994See, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 204 Conn. 377 , 394 n.9, 528 A.2d 794 (1987); State v. Redente, 19 Conn. App. 521 , 531 n.5, 563 A.2d 1365 (1989); State v. Thompson, 17 Conn. App. 490 , 498 n.5, 554 A.2d 297 , cert. denied, 211 Conn. 803 , 559 A.2d 1136 (1989). 1994See, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 204 Conn. 377 , 394 n.9, 528 A.2d 794 (1987); State v. Redente, 19 Conn. App. 521 , 531 n.5, 563 A.2d 1365 (1989); State v. Thompson, 17 Conn. App. 490 , 498 n.5, 554 A.2d 297 , cert. denied, 211 Conn. 803 , 559 A.2d 1136 (1989). | 5 | 1991–1994 |
State v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2004Without a separately briefed and analyzed state constitutional claim, we deem abandoned the defendant’s claim . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez, 69 Conn. App. 649 , 656 n.6, 796 A.2d 1225 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 937 , 802 A.2d 91 (2002). 2 We decline to review the defendant’s state constitutional claim for the reasons set forth in footnote 1. 3 Although the defendant has briefed those claims separately as they relate to the charges of robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree, we address them together. 4 General Statutes § 53a-133 provides in r 2004Without a separately briefed and analyzed state constitutional claim, we deem abandoned the defendant’s claim . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez, 69 Conn. App. 649 , 656 n.6, 796 A.2d 1225 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 937 , 802 A.2d 91 (2002). 2 We decline to review the defendant’s state constitutional claim for the reasons set forth in footnote 1. 3 Although the defendant has briefed those claims separately as they relate to the charges of robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree, we address them together. 4 General Statutes § 53a-133 provides in r | 4 | 2003–2004 |
State v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2004Without a separately briefed and analyzed state constitutional claim, we deem abandoned the defendant’s claim . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez, 69 Conn. App. 649 , 656 n.6, 796 A.2d 1225 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 937 , 802 A.2d 91 (2002). 2 We decline to review the defendant’s state constitutional claim for the reasons set forth in footnote 1. 3 Although the defendant has briefed those claims separately as they relate to the charges of robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree, we address them together. 4 General Statutes § 53a-133 provides in r 2004Without a separately briefed and analyzed state constitutional claim, we deem abandoned the defendant’s claim . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez, 69 Conn. App. 649 , 656 n.6, 796 A.2d 1225 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 937 , 802 A.2d 91 (2002). 2 We decline to review the defendant’s state constitutional claim for the reasons set forth in footnote 1. 3 Although the defendant has briefed those claims separately as they relate to the charges of robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree, we address them together. 4 General Statutes § 53a-133 provides in r | 4 | 2003–2004 |
State v. Peeler
green
2 sentences2019Both propositions mark a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda . . . has long provided during custodial interrogation.’’). 11 In State v. Kono, 324 Conn. 80 , 82 n.3, 122-24, 152 A.3d 1 (2016), this court, following the approach we previously had adopted in State v. Santiago, 318 Conn. 1 , 16 n.11, 122 A.3d 1 (2015), explained that it is appropriate to consider the state constitutional claim first when the issue presented is one of first impression under both the state and federal constitutions or the issue is not settled under the federal co 2019Both propositions mark a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda . . . has long provided during custodial interrogation.’’). 11 In State v. Kono, 324 Conn. 80 , 82 n.3, 122-24, 152 A.3d 1 (2016), this court, following the approach we previously had adopted in State v. Santiago, 318 Conn. 1 , 16 n.11, 122 A.3d 1 (2015), explained that it is appropriate to consider the state constitutional claim first when the issue presented is one of first impression under both the state and federal constitutions or the issue is not settled under the federal co | 3 | 2016–2025 |
State v. Fauntleroy
green
2 sentences2008Without a separately briefed and analyzed state constitutional claim, we deem abandoned the defendant’s claim . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fauntleroy, 101 Conn. App. 144 , 159 n.5, 921 A.2d 622 (2007). 2008Without a separately briefed and analyzed state constitutional claim, we deem abandoned the defendant’s claim . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fauntleroy, 101 Conn. App. 144 , 159 n.5, 921 A.2d 622 (2007). | 3 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Crespo
green
2 sentences2002As we concluded in Geisler , “[i]n order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach . . . (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) 2002As we concluded in Geisler , “[i]n order to construe the contours of our state constitution and reach reasoned and principled results, the following tools of analysis should be considered to the extent applicable: (1) the textual approach ... (2) holdings and dicta of this court ... (3) federal precedent ... (4) sister state decisions or sibling approach . . . (5) the historical approach, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers . . . and (6) economic/sociological considerations.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) | 3 | 1999–2006 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2003Without a separately briefed and analyzed state constitutional claim, we deem abandoned the defendant’s claim . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 65 Conn. App. 649 , 652 n.6, 783 A.2d 511 (2001). 2003Without a separately briefed and analyzed state constitutional claim, we deem abandoned the defendant’s claim . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 65 Conn. App. 649 , 652 n.6, 783 A.2d 511 (2001). | 3 | 2002–2003 |
State v. Stoddard
green
2 sentences2002Grant first contends that his statements (including the statements not already suppressed) must be suppressed under the state constitutional rule of State v. Stoddard, 206 Conn. 157 , 537 A.2d 446 (1988). 2002Grant first contends that his statements (including the statements not already suppressed) must be suppressed under the state constitutional rule of State v. Stoddard, 206 Conn. 157 , 537 A.2d 446 (1988). | 3 | 1996–2002 |
| Colorado v. Connelly green | 3 | 1989–1995 |
| State v. Hernandez neutral | 3 | 1992–1994 |
| State v. Campbell green | 3 | 1993–1994 |
| State v. Kimbro red | 3 | 1986–1992 |
| State v. Williams green | 2 | 2017–2025 |
| State v. Langston green | 2 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. West green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Elson green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| Hogan v. Department of Children & Families green | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Dukes green | 2 | 1989–2017 |
| State v. Hurdle neutral | 2 | 2004–2015 |
| State v. Hurdle green | 2 | 2004–2015 |
| In Re Melody L. red | 2 | 2009–2013 |
| Commonwealth v. Torres green | 2 | 2007–2010 |
| State v. Canales green | 2 | 2008–2009 |
| State v. Colon green | 2 | 2006–2007 |
| Miller-Bates v. Wachovia Bank green | 2 | 2006–2007 |
| Colon v. Connecticut green | 2 | 2006–2007 |
| Richardson v. West green | 2 | 2002–2006 |
| State v. Medina green | 2 | 2005–2006 |
| Binette v. Sabo green | 2 | 1999–2003 |
| State v. Valentine green | 2 | 2002–2003 |
| State v. Rosado green | 2 | 1995–2001 |
| State v. Joyner green | 2 | 1995–2001 |
| State v. Birch green | 2 | 1994–1995 |
| State v. Evans green | 2 | 1987–1995 |
| State v. Hernandez neutral | 2 | 1992–1994 |
| Campbell v. Connecticut green | 2 | 1994–1994 |
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.