In re Eberhart, 841 A.2d 217 (Conn. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Eberhart, 841 A.2d 217 (Conn. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hickey (conn, 2018-05-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" Disciplinary Counsel v. Hickey (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Conn. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Application of Eberhart, 48 Conn.Supp. 267 , 269, 277, 841 A.2d 749 (2002) (attorney applicant's second application for reinstatement to bar was precluded by res judicata because three judge panel that heard first application for readmission concluded that, "having resigned from the bar and having knowingly and voluntarily waived his privilege to reapply, [the attorney applicant] was estopped [from applying] for readmission to the bar"), aff'd, 267 Conn. 667 , 841 A.2d 217 (2004) ; see also id. at 668, 841 A.2d 217 (adopting opinion of trial court as "a proper statement of the issues…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Murphy v. Rosen (2×)
Conn. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., In re Appli- cation of Eberhart, 267 Conn. 667, 668 , 841 A.2d 217 (2004).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller (2×)
Conn. · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., In re Application of Eberhart, 267 Conn. 667, 668 , 841 A.2d 217 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
IN RE APPLICATION OF HARRY S. EBERHART
SC 17003.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 24, 2004.
841 A.2d 217
Jeffrey D. Brownstein, for the appellant (defendant)., Thomas J. Sansone, for the appellee (substitute plaintiff).
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Harry S. Eberhart, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his application for reinstatement to the bar of this state.[1] This was the defendant’s second application for reinstatement, following his 1991 resignation from the bar, which was accompanied by a waiver of his right to apply for reinstatement. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly: (1) ignored certain provisions of the rules of practice; (2) applied the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata; and (3) denied him due process of law.

Based on our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties, we are persuaded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The issues were resolved properly in the trial court’s concise and well reasoned memorandum of decision. In re Application of Eberhart, 48 Conn. Sup. 267, 841 A.2d 749 (2004). The memorandum of decision fully addresses all issues raised by the defendant in this appeal. Therefore, we adopt it as a proper statement of the issues and the applicable law concerning those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 259 Conn. 45, 55, 787 A.2d 530 (2002).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1.