State v. Acosta

How courts have described this case

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

• ‘‘[b]ecause we have repeatedly emphasized the connectedness of the three DeJesus relevancy factors, we decline to adopt a [bright-line] rule for remoteness, or a rule that establishes a presumption that after ten years the uncharged conduct is too remote’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Prince
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 2017-12-05· cited 56×
• State v. Eddie N. C.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2017-11-21· cited 11×
• State v. Lutes
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 2018-06-19· cited 7×
• State v. Samuel U.
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-11-28· cited 4×
• State v. Daren Y.
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-14· cited 3×
• State v. Alvarez
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2021-12-14· cited 1×
• State v. Marcello E.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2022-10-18

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. DeJesus
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-08-19· cited 196×
• State v. Esposito
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-02-07· cited 159×
• State v. Kulmac
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-07-05· cited 159×
• State v. McKenzie-Adams
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-02-27· cited 90×
• State v. Romero
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-06-08· cited 84×
• McKenzie-Adams v. Connecticut
  Supreme Court· 2007-10-01· cited 77×
• State v. Jacobson
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-08-21· cited 49×
• State v. Snelgrove
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-09-16· cited 32×
• State v. Johnson
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-11-11· cited 31×
• State v. Gupta
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-06-29· cited 27×