Log In
  • US
  • 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)
  • Supreme Court
  • High Courts
    All High Courts
    Allahabad High Court
    Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Bombay High Court
    Calcutta High Court
    Chhattisgarh High Court
    Delhi High Court
    Gauhati High Court
    Gujarat High Court
    Himachal Pradesh High Court
    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    Jharkhand High Court
    Karnataka High Court
    Kerala High Court
    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Madras High Court
    Manipur High Court
    Meghalaya High Court
    Orissa High Court
    Patna High Court
    Punjab & Haryana High Court
    Rajasthan High Court
    Sikkim High Court
    Telangana High Court
    Tripura High Court
    Uttarakhand High Court
Log In Sign Up India Judgments
  • US
  • 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. 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...
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...
Connecticut Supreme Court Clarifies: No Post‑Procurement Common‑Law Duty for Insurance Agents To Warn of Impending Cancellation/Nonrenewal; Dissent Proposes a Continuing Duty To Inform

Connecticut Supreme Court Clarifies: No Post‑Procurement Common‑Law Duty for Insurance Agents To Warn of Impending Cancellation/Nonrenewal; Dissent Proposes a Continuing Duty To Inform

Date: Sep 8, 2025
Connecticut Supreme Court Clarifies: No Post‑Procurement Common‑Law Duty for Insurance Agents To Warn of Impending Cancellation/Nonrenewal; Dissent Proposes a Continuing Duty To Inform Note: This...
Connecticut Adopts a Balancing Test for Prearrest Delay Under the State Due Process Clauses: Commentary on State v. McFarland (2025)

Connecticut Adopts a Balancing Test for Prearrest Delay Under the State Due Process Clauses: Commentary on State v. McFarland (2025)

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Connecticut Adopts a Balancing Test for Prearrest Delay Under the State Due Process Clauses: Commentary on State v. McFarland (2025) Introduction State v. McFarland is a landmark decision of the...
State v. McFarland: Connecticut Adopts a State Due Process Balancing Test for Pre‑Accusation Delay—Concurrence Urges Retaining Marion–Lovasco

State v. McFarland: Connecticut Adopts a State Due Process Balancing Test for Pre‑Accusation Delay—Concurrence Urges Retaining Marion–Lovasco

Date: Sep 4, 2025
State v. McFarland: Connecticut Adopts a State Due Process Balancing Test for Pre‑Accusation Delay—Concurrence Urges Retaining Marion–Lovasco Introduction In State v. McFarland (Conn. Sept. 2, 2025),...
Balancing, Not Bad Faith: Connecticut Adopts a Barker-Style Test for Prearrest Delay Due Process Claims

Balancing, Not Bad Faith: Connecticut Adopts a Barker-Style Test for Prearrest Delay Due Process Claims

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Balancing, Not Bad Faith: Connecticut Adopts a Barker-Style Test for Prearrest Delay Due Process Claims Introduction In State v. McFarland (Second Concurrence), Supreme Court of Connecticut (Sept. 2,...
Toward a Balancing Test for Prearrest Delay Under the Connecticut Constitution: Justice Alexander’s Concurrence in State v. McFarland

Toward a Balancing Test for Prearrest Delay Under the Connecticut Constitution: Justice Alexander’s Concurrence in State v. McFarland

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Toward a Balancing Test for Prearrest Delay Under the Connecticut Constitution: Justice Alexander’s Concurrence in State v. McFarland Introduction In State v. McFarland (Supreme Court of Connecticut,...
State v. Jacques (Conn. 2025): No Second Probable Cause Hearing After Appellate Reversal; Medical Memory Loss Does Not Defeat Confrontation or Whelan; Clarified Reliability Gatekeeping for Jailhouse Informants

State v. Jacques (Conn. 2025): No Second Probable Cause Hearing After Appellate Reversal; Medical Memory Loss Does Not Defeat Confrontation or Whelan; Clarified Reliability Gatekeeping for Jailhouse Informants

Date: Aug 31, 2025
State v. Jacques: Probable Cause Survives Appellate Suppression; Medical Memory Loss Does Not Bar Confrontation or Whelan; Reliability Threshold for Jailhouse Informants Affirmed Introduction In...
No Ineffective-Assistance Exception: Clue v. Commissioner of Correction and the Finality of Habeas Judgments under § 52-212a

No Ineffective-Assistance Exception: Clue v. Commissioner of Correction and the Finality of Habeas Judgments under § 52-212a

Date: Aug 26, 2025
No Ineffective-Assistance Exception: Supreme Court of Connecticut Bars Late Opening of Habeas Judgments under § 52-212a 1. Introduction In Clue v. Commissioner of Correction, 348 Conn. ___ (2025),...
Distinct Constitutional Treatment of Insanity Acquittees Confirmed: Commentary on State v. Foster (Conn. 2025)

Distinct Constitutional Treatment of Insanity Acquittees Confirmed: Commentary on State v. Foster (Conn. 2025)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
“A Special Class that Should Be Treated Differently”: The Connecticut Supreme Court Re-aligns Equal-Protection Doctrine for Insanity Acquittees – State v. Foster, 353 Conn. 1 (2025) 1. Introduction...
Clarifying “Imminent Dangerousness”: State v. Foster Sets a Strict Evidentiary Compass for the Continued Commitment of Insanity Acquittees

Clarifying “Imminent Dangerousness”: State v. Foster Sets a Strict Evidentiary Compass for the Continued Commitment of Insanity Acquittees

Date: Aug 25, 2025
Clarifying “Imminent Dangerousness”: State v. Foster Sets a Strict Evidentiary Compass for the Continued Commitment of Insanity Acquittees 1. Introduction State v. Foster, --- Conn. --- (Aug. 19,...
Vacatur of Moot Commitment Orders for Insanity Acquittees: State v. Guild (Conn. 2025)

Vacatur of Moot Commitment Orders for Insanity Acquittees: State v. Guild (Conn. 2025)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
Vacatur of Moot Commitment Orders for Insanity Acquittees: State v. Guild, 353 Conn. ____ (2025) Introduction State v. Guild confronts the Connecticut Supreme Court with an increasingly common...
Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

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

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • Judgment Takedown Policy (India)
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

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

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert