Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

CHRISTOPHER R. v. COMMISSIONER OF MENTAL RETARDATION (SC 17318)
Sullivan, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued January 11--officially released April 4, 2006

M. J. McCarthy, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Richard J. Lynch, assistant attorney general, for the appellant (defendant). Paulette G. Annon, for the appellee (plaintiff). Sandra A. Trionfini filed a brief for the Connecticut Legal Services, Inc., et al. as amici curiae.
Opinion

KATZ, J. The defendant, the commissioner of mental retardation, appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the appeal of the minor plaintiff, Christopher R.,1 brought through his father, James R., from the defendant's decision concluding that the plaintiff is not eligible for services from the department of mental retardation (department) on the ground that the level of his intellectual functioning does not meet the definition of mental retardation as set forth in General Statutes (Rev. to 2003)

Download Christopher R. v. Commission of Mental Retardation.pdf

Connecticut Law