C.W. Lobster Co. v. Schnare

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “[w]hen one and only one [term designating a mental state] appears in a statute defining an offense, it is presumed to apply to every element of the offense unless an intent to limit its application clearly appears”
• explaining that “when one and only one [term designating a mental state] appears in a statute defining an offense, it is presumed to apply to every element of the offense unless an intent to limit its application clearly appears”
• applying Golding to claim that trial court failed to instruct jury on element of crime
• applying Golding to claim that trial court failed to instruct jury on element of crime
• to establish violation of § 21a-278a (b), state must prove that defendant intended to sell drugs within proscribed geographic area
• absence of requirement that defendant knowingly sold narcotics within prohibited school zone demonstrates that legislature did not intend to make knowledge element of crime

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).