Skip to main content

In re Daniel H.

Citations

  • 237 Conn. 364
  • 678 A.2d 462
  • 1996 Conn. LEXIS 205

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding “the removal of a right to a direct appeal [of a juvenile transfer order] is also a substantive change in the law” that applies only prospectively and not retroactively to cases predating statutory amendment
  • statute eliminating the right of a juvenile to take interlocutory appeal from a transfer order affects a juvenile’s substantive interests and therefore may not be applied retroactively
  • to determine whether change in law is retro- active as applied to specific crime, court looks to date of crime
  • statutory amendment removing right to direct appeal from juvenile transfer order is substantive
  • construing mandatory juvenile transfer statute
  • construing mandatory juvenile transfer statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Norcott

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.