Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

Connecticut Case Commentaries

State v. Enrrique H.: “A Case Involving” Physical Force Under § 53a-217 (a) (4) (A) Encompasses the Whole Prior Proceeding, Not Merely Offense Elements

State v. Enrrique H.: “A Case Involving” Physical Force Under § 53a-217 (a) (4) (A) Encompasses the Whole Prior Proceeding, Not Merely Offense Elements

Date: Jan 5, 2026
State v. Enrrique H.: “A Case Involving” Physical Force Under § 53a-217 (a) (4) (A) Encompasses the Whole Prior Proceeding, Not Merely Offense Elements 1. Introduction In State v. Enrrique H. (Conn....
State v. Thorpe: Clarifying the Use of Prearrest Silence to Impeach a Self-Defense Claim under Connecticut’s Plain Error Doctrine

State v. Thorpe: Clarifying the Use of Prearrest Silence to Impeach a Self-Defense Claim under Connecticut’s Plain Error Doctrine

Date: Dec 27, 2025
State v. Thorpe: Clarifying the Use of Prearrest Silence to Impeach a Self-Defense Claim under Connecticut’s Plain Error Doctrine I. Introduction In State v. Thorpe, SC 21004 (Conn. Dec. 23, 2025),...
Mandatory Appeals from Misconduct Findings Before Cumulative Discipline Presentments: Commentary on Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Vaccaro

Mandatory Appeals from Misconduct Findings Before Cumulative Discipline Presentments: Commentary on Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Vaccaro

Date: Dec 27, 2025
Mandatory Appeals from Misconduct Findings Before Cumulative Discipline Presentments: Commentary on Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Vaccaro I. Introduction On December 23, 2025, the Supreme...
Actual Concealment, Not Mere Abandonment: The Meaning of “Conceal” in Connecticut’s Evidence Tampering Statute After State v. Bolden

Actual Concealment, Not Mere Abandonment: The Meaning of “Conceal” in Connecticut’s Evidence Tampering Statute After State v. Bolden

Date: Dec 19, 2025
Actual Concealment, Not Mere Abandonment: The Meaning of “Conceal” in Connecticut’s Evidence Tampering Statute After State v. Bolden I. Introduction In State v. Bolden, SC 21063 (officially released...
Duso v. Groton and the Meaning of “Nature and Scope of Coverages”: Why Employer HSA Contributions Are Not “Coverage” or “Deductibles” for Retiree Health Parity

Duso v. Groton and the Meaning of “Nature and Scope of Coverages”: Why Employer HSA Contributions Are Not “Coverage” or “Deductibles” for Retiree Health Parity

Date: Dec 11, 2025
Duso v. Groton and the Meaning of “Nature and Scope of Coverages”: Why Employer HSA Contributions Are Not “Coverage” or “Deductibles” for Retiree Health Parity I. Introduction In Duso v. Groton, 353...
Preserving Golding Review and Refining Forensic Confrontation Doctrine: Commentary on State v. Bester

Preserving Golding Review and Refining Forensic Confrontation Doctrine: Commentary on State v. Bester

Date: Dec 10, 2025
Preserving Golding Review and Refining Forensic Confrontation Doctrine: Commentary on State v. Bester I. Introduction The Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Bester (SC 20858, officially...
Miranda Custody, Child Hearsay, and U‑Visa Motive: A Comprehensive Commentary on State v. Lazaro C.-D.

Miranda Custody, Child Hearsay, and U‑Visa Motive: A Comprehensive Commentary on State v. Lazaro C.-D.

Date: Dec 10, 2025
Miranda Custody, Child Hearsay, and U‑Visa Motive: Commentary on State v. Lazaro C.-D., 30 Conn. 1 (2025) I. Introduction The Supreme Court of Connecticut’s decision in State v. Lazaro C.-D., 30...
State v. Giovanni D.: Clarifying the Child’s-Understanding Requirement for the Medical Treatment Hearsay Exception in Forensic Interviews

State v. Giovanni D.: Clarifying the Child’s-Understanding Requirement for the Medical Treatment Hearsay Exception in Forensic Interviews

Date: Dec 10, 2025
State v. Giovanni D.: Clarifying the Child’s-Understanding Requirement for the Medical Treatment Hearsay Exception in Forensic Interviews Note: This commentary is for informational purposes only and...
State v. Cooper: Connecticut Declines to Require Pre‑Waiver Adult Consultation for Juveniles; Totality of the Circumstances Governs Miranda Waivers

State v. Cooper: Connecticut Declines to Require Pre‑Waiver Adult Consultation for Juveniles; Totality of the Circumstances Governs Miranda Waivers

Date: Oct 8, 2025
State v. Cooper: Connecticut Declines to Require Pre‑Waiver Adult Consultation for Juveniles; Totality of the Circumstances Governs Miranda Waivers Introduction In State v. Cooper, SC 20865 (Conn....
No Per Se “Interested Adult” Rule for Juvenile Miranda Waivers: Connecticut Reaffirms Totality-of-the-Circumstances in State v. Cooper (2025)

No Per Se “Interested Adult” Rule for Juvenile Miranda Waivers: Connecticut Reaffirms Totality-of-the-Circumstances in State v. Cooper (2025)

Date: Oct 8, 2025
No Per Se “Interested Adult” Rule for Juvenile Miranda Waivers: Connecticut Reaffirms Totality-of-the-Circumstances in State v. Cooper (2025) Introduction In State v. Cooper, the Supreme Court of...
Juvenile Miranda Waivers and the Totality of the Circumstances: Commentary on State v. Cooper (Conn. 2025)

Juvenile Miranda Waivers and the Totality of the Circumstances: Commentary on State v. Cooper (Conn. 2025)

Date: Oct 8, 2025
Juvenile Miranda Waivers and the Totality of the Circumstances: Commentary on State v. Cooper (Conn. 2025) I. Introduction State v. Cooper, 0 Conn. 1 (officially released Sept. 30, 2025), is a...
Reaffirming the Totality Standard for Juvenile Miranda Waivers: Commentary on State v. Cooper (Conn. 2025)

Reaffirming the Totality Standard for Juvenile Miranda Waivers: Commentary on State v. Cooper (Conn. 2025)

Date: Oct 8, 2025
Reaffirming the Totality Standard for Juvenile Miranda Waivers: Commentary on State v. Cooper (Conn. 2025) I. Introduction The Supreme Court of Connecticut’s decision in State v. Cooper (SC 20865,...
No Per Se “Interested-Adult Consultation” Rule for Juvenile Miranda Waivers in Connecticut: State v. Cooper (2025)

No Per Se “Interested-Adult Consultation” Rule for Juvenile Miranda Waivers in Connecticut: State v. Cooper (2025)

Date: Oct 1, 2025
No Per Se “Interested-Adult Consultation” Rule for Juvenile Miranda Waivers in Connecticut: State v. Cooper (2025) Introduction In State v. Cooper (Supreme Court of Connecticut, officially released...
"Exceptional Services" Fees May Include Equipment Charges: Connecticut Supreme Court Recasts § 14-63-36c(c) as a Posting Requirement, Not a Labor-Only Cap

"Exceptional Services" Fees May Include Equipment Charges: Connecticut Supreme Court Recasts § 14-63-36c(c) as a Posting Requirement, Not a Labor-Only Cap

Date: Sep 24, 2025
"Exceptional Services" Fees May Include Equipment Charges: Connecticut Supreme Court Recasts § 14-63-36c(c) as a Posting Requirement, Not a Labor-Only Cap Introduction In Modzelewski's Towing &...
State v. Henderson: No Per Se Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instruction in Intimate‑Partner Homicides; Loss of Self‑Control Must Be Shown and Postcrime Evasion Undercuts the Defense

State v. Henderson: No Per Se Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instruction in Intimate‑Partner Homicides; Loss of Self‑Control Must Be Shown and Postcrime Evasion Undercuts the Defense

Date: Sep 24, 2025
State v. Henderson: No Per Se Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instruction in Intimate‑Partner Homicides; Loss of Self‑Control Must Be Shown and Postcrime Evasion Undercuts the Defense Introduction In...
Reasserting the “Light Most Favorable” Mandate and Jury Primacy for Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instructions: Justice Ecker’s Dissent in State v. Henderson

Reasserting the “Light Most Favorable” Mandate and Jury Primacy for Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instructions: Justice Ecker’s Dissent in State v. Henderson

Date: Sep 24, 2025
Reasserting the “Light Most Favorable” Mandate and Jury Primacy for Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instructions: Justice Ecker’s Dissent in State v. Henderson Introduction In State v. Henderson...
No “Neighborhood Expert” Workaround: Connecticut Treats Euphemistic Gang Testimony as Inadmissible Absent Foundation and Significant Probative Value — Commentary on State v. Dixon (Conn. 2025)

No “Neighborhood Expert” Workaround: Connecticut Treats Euphemistic Gang Testimony as Inadmissible Absent Foundation and Significant Probative Value — Commentary on State v. Dixon (Conn. 2025)

Date: Sep 17, 2025
No “Neighborhood Expert” Workaround: Connecticut Treats Euphemistic Gang Testimony as Inadmissible Absent Foundation and Significant Probative Value Case: State v. Dixon, Supreme Court of...
Neighborhood “Beef” Evidence Equals Gang-Affiliation Evidence: Admissibility, Scope-Limiting, and Harmless Error in Expert Testimony (State v. Dixon, Conn. 2025)

Neighborhood “Beef” Evidence Equals Gang-Affiliation Evidence: Admissibility, Scope-Limiting, and Harmless Error in Expert Testimony (State v. Dixon, Conn. 2025)

Date: Sep 17, 2025
Neighborhood “Beef” Evidence Equals Gang-Affiliation Evidence: Admissibility, Scope-Limiting, and Harmless Error in Expert Testimony (State v. Dixon, Conn. 2025) Introduction In State v. Dixon, the...
All Defendants in Hybrid Product Liability Suits Are “Parties” for Comparative Responsibility; the One‑Year Contribution Period Runs from Appellate Finality (HBWS v. Wang)

All Defendants in Hybrid Product Liability Suits Are “Parties” for Comparative Responsibility; the One‑Year Contribution Period Runs from Appellate Finality (HBWS v. Wang)

Date: Sep 10, 2025
All Defendants in Hybrid Product Liability Suits Are “Parties” for Comparative Responsibility; the One‑Year Contribution Period Runs from Appellate Finality Introduction In Health Body World Supply,...
Connecticut High Court Clarifies Broker’s Post‑Placement Duties: No Duty to Relay Nonrenewal Absent Undertaking; Longstanding Relationship Alone Is Insufficient

Connecticut High Court Clarifies Broker’s Post‑Placement Duties: No Duty to Relay Nonrenewal Absent Undertaking; Longstanding Relationship Alone Is Insufficient

Date: Sep 8, 2025
Connecticut High Court Clarifies Broker’s Post‑Placement Duties: No Duty to Relay Nonrenewal Absent Undertaking; Longstanding Relationship Alone Is Insufficient Introduction In Deer v. National...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • FAQs
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • Campus Connect Fellow Program
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert