State v. Quint

How courts have described this case

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

• “the state was required to prove the substantive offense in order to establish accessorial liability”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Henry
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2002-10-01· cited 31×
• State v. Montanez
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-04-18· cited 30×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Charles Eugene Monks, United States of America v. Gary A. Holt
  Ninth Circuit· 1985-10-21· cited 89×
• State v. Edwards
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-12· cited 52×
• State v. Cassidy
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1985-03-12· cited 51×
• State v. Hancich
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-07-29· cited 39×
• State v. Briggs
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1989-03-14· cited 9×
• State v. Gary
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-05-09· cited 5×
• State v. Levine
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1989-01-03· cited 4×