Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Connecticut » Supreme Court » 2012 » SC18527 Dissent - Hardy v. Superior Court
SC18527 Dissent - Hardy v. Superior Court
State: Connecticut
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 305CR80E
Case Date: 08/07/2012
Plaintiff: SC18527 Dissent - Hardy
Defendant: Superior Court
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. ******************************************************

HARDY v. SUPERIOR COURT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA NUMBER TWO--DISSENT

HARPER, J., with whom ROGERS, C. J., joins, dissenting. I agree with the majority that it is appropriate for this court to consider, via a writ of error, the challenge of the plaintiff in error (plaintiff), Jermaine Hardy, to his summary contempt adjudication as procedurally defective. I disagree, however, with the majority's conclusion that there was substantial compliance with the notice and allocution requirements of Practice Book
Download 305CR80E.pdf

Connecticut Law

Connecticut State Laws
Connecticut Court
Connecticut Agencies
    > Connecticut DMV

Comments

Tips