green
Positive treatment
8.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Qayyum
See State v. Cromety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 430 , 925 A.2d 1133 (defendant’s claim concern- ing testimony of expert witness was unpreserved evidentiary claim that was not reviewable because defendant failed to object timely to testimony), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harborside Connecticut Ltd. Partnership v. Witte
See 225 Associates v. Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, supra, 65 Conn. App. 121 .5 As the court outlined in its memorandum of decision, the legislature has devised a comprehensive statutory scheme for the settlement of claims against a decedent’s estate.6 General Statutes § 45a-353 (d) defines a claim against a decedent as ‘‘all claims against a decedent (1) existing at the time of the decedent’s death or (2) arising after the decedent’s death, including, but not limited to, claims which are mature, unmatured, liquidated, unliquidated, contingent, founded in tort, or in the na…
discussed
Cited "see"
Harborside Connecticut Ltd. Partnership v. Witte
See 225 Associates v. Connecticut Housing Finance Authority , supra, 65 Conn. App. at 121 , 782 A.2d 189 . 5 As the court outlined in its memorandum of decision, the legislature has devised a comprehensive statutory scheme for the settlement of claims against a decedent's estate. 6 General Statutes § 45a-353 (d) defines a claim against a decedent as "all claims against a decedent (1) existing at the time of the decedent's death or (2) arising after the decedent's death, including, but not limited to, claims which are mature, unmatured, liquidated, unliquidated, contingent, founded in tort, or…
cited
Cited "see"
Martin v. v. Commissioner of Correction
See State v. Martin V., 102 Conn. App. 381 , 926 A.2d 49 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 911 , 931 A.2d 933 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Paredes
See State v. Cromety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 431 , 925 A.2d 1133 (“[p]utting a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional claim will no more change its essential character than calling a bull a cow will change its gender” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Colon
See State v. Blango, 102 Conn. App. 532, 542 , 925 A.2d 1186 (evidence sufficient to establish guilt of threatening in second degree when defendant, while holding gun, asked victims if they had “ ‘ever been shot before’ ”), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 913 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007); State v. Gibson, supra, 75 Conn. App. 123 -24 (sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction under § 53a-62 [a] [1] when defendant, while grabbing victim’s arm, stated to victim, “ ‘when [I get] out of jail, it’s going to be just [you and me]’ ”); State v. Snead, 41 Conn. App. 584, 586, 592-94…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Licari
The defendant next asserts that the prosecutor “coerced Grascia into providing [her] statement with the sole intent of using the statement as a tool with which to discredit Grascia’s in-court testimony.” 19 We conclude that the defendant is merely reasserting his unpreserved evidentiary claim “through the guise of a claim of prosecutorial impropriety with constitutional implications.” State v. Burgos-Torres, 114 Conn. App. 112, 121 , 968 A.2d 476 (2009); see State v. Cromety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 431 , 925 A.2d 1133 (“[although our Supreme Court has held that unpreserved claims of p…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Webber
See Bridgeport v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 222 Conn. App. 41 (whether essential fact that goes to merits of complaint has been established does not implicate tribunal’s jurisdiction); see also New England Retail Properties, Inc. v. Maturo, 102 Conn. App. 476 , 481–82, 925 A.2d 1151 (under statute prohibiting commence- ment of suit unless and until legal claim is rejected by estate, defendant’s claim that estate had not rejected plaintiff’s legal claim did not implicate court’s subject matter jurisdiction but, rather, its statutory authority), Page 12 CONNECTICUT LAW …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sousa v. Sousa
See, e.g., *713 Terry v. Terry , 102 Conn.App. 215 , 227, 925 A.2d 375 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 911 , 931 A.2d 934 (2007). *770 The defendant relies on Weinstein v. Weinstein , supra, 275 Conn. at 685 , 882 A.2d 53 , for the proposition that "[m]isrepresentations of this magnitude cannot be attributed to mistake or miscalculation," but, rather, overwhelmingly evince the plaintiff's knowledge of the misrepresentation and intent to deceive.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Johnson
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Cromety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 431 , 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Reville v. Reville
See, e.g., Weinstein v. Weinstein, supra, 275 Conn. 684–85; Billington v. Bill- ington, supra, 220 Conn. 215 , 217–18; Jucker v. Jucker, 190 Conn. 674, 675, 677 , 461 A.2d 1384 (1983); see also Terry v. Terry, 102 Conn. App. 215, 223 , 925 A.2d 375 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 911 , 931 A.2d 934 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jordan
See General Statutes § 53a-133; see also State v. Lewis, 245 Conn. 779, 787 , 717 A.2d 1140 (1998). “[T]he intent element of robbery relates to the commission of the larceny and not to the use or threatened use of physical *656 force.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Blango, 102 Conn. App. 532, 548 , 925 A.2d 1186 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 913 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Jose B.
Id., 732; see also New England Retail Properties, Inc. v. Maturo, 102 Conn. App. 476, 482 , 925 A.2d 1151 (under statute prohibiting commencement of action against estate unless legal claim has been rejected by estate, claim that estate had not rejected legal claim did not implicate court’s subject matter jurisdiction but was question of statutory authority), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Matthew F.
(2×)
Id., at 732 , 724 A.2d 1084 ; see also New England Retail Proper ties, Inc. v. Maturo, 102 Conn.App. 476, 482 , 925 A.2d 1151 (under statute prohibiting commencement of action against estate unless legal claim has been rejected by estate, claim that estate had not rejected legal claim did not implicate court's subject matter jurisdiction but was question of statutory authority), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Dawes
State v. Luster, supra, 437 ; see also State v. Cromety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 440 , 925 A.2d 1133 (“prosecutor may ask the jury to apply common *313 sense and experience to determine credibility”), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007); State v. Lindo, 75 Conn. App. 408, 416 , 816 A.2d 641 (“[r]emarks that are nothing more than a permissible appeal to the jurors’ common sense do not constitute prosecutorial [impropriety]”), cert. denied, 263 Conn. 917 , 821 A.2d 771 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Blake
(2×)
“The reason for the rule is obvious: to permit a party to raise a claim on appeal that has not been raised at trial—after it is too late for the trial court or the opposing party to address the claim—would encourage trial by ambuscade, which is unfair to both the trial court and the opposing party.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dalzell, 282 Conn. 709, 720 , 924 A.2d 809 (2007); see also State v. Randolph, 284 Conn. 328, 374 , 933 A.2d 1158 (2007). “[O]ur rules of procedure do not allow a [party] to pursue one course of action at trial and later, on appeal, argue that …
State of Connecticut
v.
William Andrews
v.
William Andrews
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 12, 2007.
Pamela S. Nagy, special public defender, in support of the petition., Melissa L. Streeto, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Schaller.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 102 Conn. App. 819 (AC 25508), is denied.
SCHALLER, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.