Supreme Court of Connecticut· 8/1/1978
State v. Mastropetre
Citations
- 175 Conn. 512
- 400 A.2d 276
- 1978 Conn. LEXIS 1040
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- question whether complainant had had sexual relations with anyone prior to sexual assault properly excluded as irrelevant
- “ ‘including, particularly, his interest in the verdict, which you may render’ ”
- ‘‘The defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him is not absolute, but must bow to other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. Cham- bers v. Mississippi, [410 U.S. 284, 295, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1973
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bogdanski, Bubinow, Cotter, Loiselle, Longo
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
88 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Dunham v. DunhamSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-07-07· cited 301×
- State v. KurvinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-03-30· cited 191×
- State v. KulmacSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-07-05· cited 159×
- State v. DerricoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-06-10· cited 151×
- State v. TaltonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-08-27· cited 140×
- State v. JohnSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-04-11· cited 139×
- State v. KishSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-04-27· cited 121×
- State v. GoldSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-05-15· cited 118×
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-04-13· cited 101×
- State v. FritzSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-06-23· cited 98×
- State v. OrtizSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-03-17· cited 98×
- State v. AlvarezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-08-21· cited 95×
- State v. WoodsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-08-03· cited 94×
- State v. FrankoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-04-22· cited 91×
- State v. BolesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-08-18· cited 89×
- State v. CourchesneSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-06-15· cited 86×
- State v. IbraimovSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-06-15· cited 86×
- State v. AvcollieSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-12-14· cited 84×
- State v. DabkowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-03-18· cited 81×
- State v. KellySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-07-26· cited 81×
Cites
46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court· 1974-02-27· cited 5,953×
- Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court· 1973-02-21· cited 5,756×
- Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court· 1965-04-05· cited 4,761×
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1965-04-28· cited 4,680×
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1965-06-07· cited 4,088×
- Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court· 1927-03-14· cited 2,714×
- Estes v. TexasSupreme Court· 1965-06-07· cited 1,725×
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1973-06-05· cited 917×
- Textile Workers Union v. Kayser-Roth Corp.Supreme Court· 1973-10-23· cited 355×
- State v. MoynahanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1973-04-05· cited 159×
- State v. ReedSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1978-02-28· cited 109×
- Aillon v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1975-06-03· cited 109×
- State Ex Rel. Pope v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court· 1976-02-02· cited 90×
- State v. RoySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1977-04-26· cited 80×
- Vogel v. SylvesterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1961-08-01· cited 75×
- Robinson v. FaulknerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1972-07-12· cited 75×
- State v. MullingsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1974-04-16· cited 66×
- Deutch v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1961-06-12· cited 60×
- State v. GuthridgeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1972-12-06· cited 51×
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1977-01-11· cited 51×
Other cases named State v. Mastropetre
1 other CourtListener record shares this case 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.