State v. Marshall, 506 A.2d 1035 (Conn. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Marshall, 506 A.2d 1035 (Conn. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rutter v. Janis (connappct, 2018-03-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Rutter v. Janis (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
Additionally, with respect to the use of a dealer number plate pursuant to § 14-60 (a), it is clear that this statute is intended both to encourage dealers to ensure that the customer has insurance coverage; see Cook v. Collins Chevrolet, Inc. , supra, 199 Conn. at 250 -52 , 506 A.2d 1035 ; which requirement was indisputably satisfied in this case, and to encourage the user of the dealer number plate to drive with care.
discussed Cited "see" Edwards v. Commissioner of Correction (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Marshall, 3 Conn. App. 126, 131-32 , 485 A.2d 930 (1985) (no reversible error where mug shot admitted into evidence without elimination of data pertaining to prior arrest, where defendant testified about prior arrest and court instructed jury to ignore prior arrest), appeal dismissed, 199 Conn. 244 , 506 A.2d 1035 (1986).
cited Cited "see" Flores v. Milford Auto Exchange, No. Cv01-0508616 (Aug. 22, 2001)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cook v. Collins Chevrolet, Inc. , 199 Conn. 245 , 249 , 506 A.2d 1035 (1986).
cited Cited "see" Platcow v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Co. of America
Conn. App. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cook v. Collins Chevrolet, Inc., 199 Conn. 245, 253 , 506 A.2d 1035 (1986).
State of Connecticut
v.
Keith Marshall
12692.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 25, 1986.
506 A.2d 1035
Louis S. Avitabile, with whom, on the brief, was Richard V. Ackerson, for the appellant (defendant)., Marcia B. Smith, assistant state’s attorney, with whom were Patricia King, deputy assistant state’s attorney, and, on the brief, John Connelly, state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we have concluded that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The issues have been fully considered in the opinion of the Appellate Court; State v. Marshall, 3 Conn. App. 126, 485 A.2d 930 (1985); and it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained.

The appeal is dismissed.