Skip to main content

State v. Orr

Citations

  • 969 A.2d 750
  • 291 Conn. 642
  • 2009 Conn. LEXIS 138

How courts have described this case

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

  • “[i]n determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did”
  • “[b]ecause statutory interpretation is a question of law, our review is de novo” [internal quotation marks omitted]
  • “[i]n determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did” [internal quotation marks omitted]
  • ‘‘[t]he fact that . . . relevant statutory provisions are silent . . . does not mean that they are ambiguous’’ (internal quotation marks omit- ted)
  • “[w]hen a statute is not plain and unambiguous, we also look for interpretive guidance to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment” [internal quotation marks omitted]
  • scope of ‘‘[the] exception [under § 52- 146q (c) (2)] is precise and limited’’ by language of statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rogers, Norcott, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Schaller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

51 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

60 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this 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.