State v. Mungroo

How courts have described this case

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

• “ 1Golding review is inapplicable to an unpreserved claim of induced error’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Mungroo
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-01-05· cited 20×
• State v. Coleman
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2009-06-02· cited 9×
• State v. Mungroo
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-04-08· cited 4×

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Miranda v. Arizona
  Supreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
• Doyle v. Ohio
  Supreme Court· 1976-06-17· cited 4,773×
• State v. Golding
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
• State v. Leecan
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-02-04· cited 192×
• State v. Fabricatore
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-02-27· cited 91×
• Karp v. Urban Redevelopment Commission
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1972-03-22· cited 77×
• State v. Davis
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-04-24· cited 57×
• In re Shaquanna M.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2001-02-06· cited 53×
• State v. Mungroo
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2007-12-04· cited 28×
• State v. Corona
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2002-04-23· cited 26×
• State v. Arluk
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2003-02-18· cited 26×
• State v. Hamlett
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2008-02-19· cited 24×
• State v. McDaniel
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2007-12-04· cited 13×
• State v. Youdin
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1995-05-30· cited 12×
• State v. Messam
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2008-07-01· cited 9×