State v. Natal

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).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Turner
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-02-18· cited 38×
• State v. Tahir L.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2024-08-27· cited 2×

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1993-06-28· cited 21,376×
• State v. Golding
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
• Connecticut v. Porter
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-05-20· cited 268×
• State v. McElveen
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-08-06· cited 84×
• State v. Smith
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-08-30· cited 74×
• State v. Bletsch
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-01-09· cited 50×
• Somers v. Chan
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2008-09-30· cited 42×
• State v. Jarrett
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2004-04-20· cited 38×
• State v. Hill
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-06-12· cited 33×
• State v. Pierce
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2001-07-10· cited 15×
• State v. Quinones
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2005-11-22· cited 15×
• State v. Young
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2001-06-19· cited 14×
• State v. Young
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-09-13· cited 12×
• State v. Maye
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2002-07-09· cited 11×
• State v. Verdolini
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2003-04-29· cited 9×
• State v. Jackson
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2005-01-11· cited 8×
• State v. Young
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2004-03-02· cited 7×