· 3/24/2009
State v. Natal
Citations
- 966 A.2d 331
- 113 Conn. App. 278
- 2009 Conn. App. LEXIS 86
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- unpreserved claim that court erroneously admitted testimony regarding results of defendant’s urine tests did not present ‘‘the type of extraordinary situation implicating [the plain error] doctrine’’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: DiPentima, Gruendel, Robinson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.