Supreme Court of Connecticut· 5/14/1991
State v. Perez
Citations
- 218 Conn. 714
- 591 A.2d 119
- 1991 Conn. LEXIS 236
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- state constitutional claim inadequately briefed because defendant failed to provide any independent analysis of Connecticut constitutional language, history, tradition and policy
- 14-year-old’s waiver valid where, inter alia, (1) juvenile demonstrated he had no difficulty with English language, (2) there was no suggestion of intoxication or mental or emotional impairment, (3
- statement of a fourteen year old admissible
- statement of a fourteen year old admissible
- statement of a fourteen year old admissible
- statement of fourteen year old admissible
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Borden
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-01-11· cited 100×
- State v. LewisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-08-04· cited 93×
- Ortiz v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware· 2005-01-25· cited 86×
- State v. HillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-05-21· cited 81×
- State v. NegronSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-03-03· cited 73×
- State v. DePastinoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-02-22· cited 69×
- Ledbetter v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-09-13· cited 64×
- State v. ValentineSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-04-15· cited 63×
- State v. CampbellSupreme Court of Rhode Island· 1997-03-20· cited 54×
- State v. GenottiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-01-14· cited 52×
- State v. ZarickSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-08-17· cited 45×
- State v. LedbetterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-04-01· cited 44×
- Associates Financial Services of America, Inc. v. SorensenConnecticut Appellate Court· 1997-09-16· cited 32×
- State of Maine v. Wai ChanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 2020-06-18· cited 27×
- State v. CastilloSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-07-03· cited 24×
- State v. RussellConnecticut Appellate Court· 1991-07-16· cited 20×
- State v. DeleonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-07-26· cited 17×
- State v. McFaddenConnecticut Appellate Court· 1991-07-02· cited 15×
- State v. DenbyConnecticut Appellate Court· 1994-08-23· cited 15×
- State v. AbreuConnecticut Appellate Court· 2008-03-11· cited 10×
Cites
27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court· 1967-05-15· cited 5,473×
- Fare v. Michael C.Supreme Court· 1979-10-01· cited 1,729×
- Oregon v. HassSupreme Court· 1975-03-19· cited 1,364×
- Haley v. OhioSupreme Court· 1948-01-19· cited 1,069×
- Gallegos v. ColoradoSupreme Court· 1962-06-25· cited 716×
- State v. PalmerNebraska Supreme Court· 1986-12-29· cited 217×
- State v. CoutureSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-10-02· cited 199×
- State v. MarsalaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-08-07· cited 185×
- State v. MooneySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-03-19· cited 145×
- State v. StewartNebraska Supreme Court· 1977-02-02· cited 131×
- People v. PrudeIllinois Supreme Court· 1977-04-05· cited 118×
- State v. Chong ChungSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-01-13· cited 77×
- State v. GullingsOregon Supreme Court· 1966-07-14· cited 73×
- State v. BenoitSupreme Court of New Hampshire· 1985-02-06· cited 71×
- State v. WhitakerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-07-24· cited 59×
- State v. LuomaWashington Supreme Court· 1977-01-18· cited 53×
- In re Manuel R.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-06-14· cited 32×
- State v. MannsWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1985-04-18· cited 20×
- Edwards v. StateSupreme Court of Kansas· 1980-04-05· cited 18×
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.