Earl v. Comm'r of Corr., 952 A.2d 809 (Conn. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Earl v. Comm'r of Corr., 952 A.2d 809 (Conn. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (26 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Walsh Fence, LLC v. Dolceaqua (connappct, 2018-01-09)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Walsh Fence, LLC v. Dolceaqua
Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chartouni v. DeJesus, 107 Conn. App. 127 , 128-29, 944 A.2d 393 , cert. denied, 288 Conn. 902 , 952 A.2d 809 (2008).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hall v. Hall
Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Chartouni v. DeJesus , 107 Conn. App. 127 , 129, 944 A.2d 393 (motion to reargue or reconsider is not opportunity to get second bite of apple), cert. denied, 288 Conn. 902 , 952 A.2d 809 (2008).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jim P. Benge, M.D. and Kelsey-Seybold Medical Group PLLC v. Lauren Williams
Tex. App. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Because we find that the court, Levin, J., properly considered the defendants' 2011 motions to dismiss, we find it unnecessary to address the defendants' argument on cross appeal. [*615] We review the plaintiff's claim under the abuse of discretion standard; see, e.g., Chartouni v. DeJesus, 107 Conn. App. 127, 127, 129 , 944 A.2d 393 (we review denial of motion to reargue for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 288 Conn. 902 , 952 A.2d 809 (2008); and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in considering the defendants' untimely 2011 functional motions to reargue.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Torres v. Carrese
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
We conclude that the court was correct in concluding that the defendants’ 2011 motions to dismiss, despite their titles, were in reality motions to reargue their 2006 motions to dismiss. 2 The plaintiff contends that the twenty day filing deadline in Practice Book § 11-12 (a) is a mandatory limitation, and therefore, because the defendants’ 2011 motions were untimely, Judge Levin improperly considered the motions. 21 The defendants argue that Judge Levin properly considered their 2011 motions to dismiss. 22 We agree with the defendants. *615 We review the plaintiffs claim under the abuse …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
EARL G.
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 25, 2008.
952 A.2d 809
Published

Paul R. Kraus, special public defender, in support of the petition.

Margaret Gaffney Radionovas, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

The petitioner Earl G.'s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate[*810] Court, 106 Conn.App. 758, 943 A.2d 1118 (2008), is denied.