private hearing in Connecticut

1983In State v. Bell, 179 Conn. 98 , 425 A.2d 574 (1979), we acknowledged our jurisdiction to review an order denying an application to be adjudicated a youthful offender where to do otherwise might deprive the defendant of his statutory right to a private hearing with sealed records.

1983In State v. Bell, 179 Conn. 98 , 425 A.2d 574 (1979), we acknowledged our jurisdiction to review an order denying an application to be adjudicated a youthful offender where to do otherwise might deprive the defendant of his statutory right to a private hearing with sealed records.

2021We are guided further by the more recent case of Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, 719 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2013), which also relied on Williams and found Gore inapplicable to a private claim for statu- tory damages.

1999Courts consider the following private factors in deciding a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens: "(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses; (3) the possibility of viewing the accident scene if such viewing is appropriate to the action; (4) the enforceability of a judgment; (5) the relative advantages and obstacles to fair trial; and (6) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive." Miller v. United Technologies Corporation, 40 Conn. Sup.

1999Courts consider the following private factors in deciding a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens: "(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses; (3) the possibility of viewing the accident scene if such viewing is appropriate to the action; (4) the enforceability of a judgment; (5) the relative advantages and obstacles to fair trial; and (6) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive." Miller v. United Technologies Corporation, 40 Conn. Sup.

1985While recognizing, as they must, that their position does result in publicity, they nevertheless argue that § 46b-124 by prohibiting disclosure of records and proceedings in juvenile matters does “curtail the additional publicity that a public trial would generate.” Two points should be made to counter this “justification.” First, as one court said: “[I]n common parlance, or in law composition, the word ‘curtail’ has no such meaning as ‘abolish.’ ” State v. Edwards, 207 La. 506, 511 , 21 So. 2d 624 (1945).

1985While recognizing, as they must, that their position does result in publicity, they nevertheless argue that § 46b-124 by prohibiting disclosure of records and proceedings in juvenile matters does “curtail the additional publicity that a public trial would generate.” Two points should be made to counter this “justification.” First, as one court said: “[I]n common parlance, or in law composition, the word ‘curtail’ has no such meaning as ‘abolish.’ ” State v. Edwards, 207 La. 506, 511 , 21 So. 2d 624 (1945).

1985I agree with Justice Parskey that under the second prong of State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31 , 463 A.2d 566 (1983), “a juvenile defendant does have a right which will be lost irreparably if the trial court’s order granting the motion to transfer is allowed to stand without immediate appel late review.” I am also inclined to agree that the majority opinion denigrates two important statutory rights of a juvenile charged with delinquency: the right to a private hearing, General Statutes § 46b-122; and the right, if incarcerated, to be segregated from adult criminals, General Statutes (Rev. to 19

1985I agree with Justice Parskey that under the second prong of State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31 , 463 A.2d 566 (1983), “a juvenile defendant does have a right which will be lost irreparably if the trial court’s order granting the motion to transfer is allowed to stand without immediate appel late review.” I am also inclined to agree that the majority opinion denigrates two important statutory rights of a juvenile charged with delinquency: the right to a private hearing, General Statutes § 46b-122; and the right, if incarcerated, to be segregated from adult criminals, General Statutes (Rev. to 19

1964None of the activities by any member of the board in the instant case, however, constituted a private hearing of the issues within the meaning of Low v. Madison, 135 Conn. 1, 9 , 60 A.2d 774 .

1964None of the activities by any member of the board in the instant case, however, constituted a private hearing of the issues within the meaning of Low v. Madison, 135 Conn. 1, 9 , 60 A.2d 774 .