misconduct claim in Connecticut

2004Id., 866 .

2002We disagree with this contention. 15 “At their core, the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions require that one subject to a significant deprivation of liberty or property must be accorded adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. . . . [S]ee CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury, 239 Conn. 375, 393 , 685 A.2d 1108 (1996) (As a procedural matter, before imposing . . . sanctions, the court must afford ... a proper hearing on the . . . [proposed] sanctions. . . .

2002We disagree with this contention. 15 “At their core, the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions require that one subject to a significant deprivation of liberty or property must be accorded adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. . . . [S]ee CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. Chowdhury, 239 Conn. 375, 393 , 685 A.2d 1108 (1996) (As a procedural matter, before imposing . . . sanctions, the court must afford ... a proper hearing on the . . . [proposed] sanctions. . . .

2000Once again, did the plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ensign-Bickford engaged in willful or serious misconduct such that at the time they engaged in such misconduct they knew that Mr. Petrozzi's injuries were substantially certain to occur as a result of the corporation's actions." The defendant's only exception to this portion of the court's charge dealt with the court's reference to "serious or willful misconduct." CT Page 9678 [emphasis supplied] The defendant requested a charge that the employer must engage in "willful and serious misconduct." [emphasis supplied] The

1998The defendant concedes that this misconduct claim was unpreserved, and he now seeks review of this claim under either State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 233 , or the plain error doctrine pursuant to Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 60-5 (formerly § 4061).

1996In the course of the rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that while some people believe that the large number of child sexual abuse cases recently coming to the fore signifies that the system is failing, he believes that it merely symbolizes a healthy societal closet cleaning. 4 The defendant concedes that this portion of the misconduct claim was not properly preserved and thus seeks review under the doctrine of State v. Evans, supra, 165 Conn. 61 , and State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239 -40. 5 We are persuaded that “[cjorrectly identified . . . this unpreserved claim of prosecutorial miscondu

1996In the course of the rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that while some people believe that the large number of child sexual abuse cases recently coming to the fore signifies that the system is failing, he believes that it merely symbolizes a healthy societal closet cleaning. 4 The defendant concedes that this portion of the misconduct claim was not properly preserved and thus seeks review under the doctrine of State v. Evans, supra, 165 Conn. 61 , and State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239 -40. 5 We are persuaded that “[cjorrectly identified . . . this unpreserved claim of prosecutorial miscondu

1996In the course of the rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that while some people believe that the large number of child sexual abuse cases recently coming to the fore signifies that the system is failing, he believes that it merely symbolizes a healthy societal closet cleaning. 4 The defendant concedes that this portion of the misconduct claim was not properly preserved and thus seeks review under the doctrine of State v. Evans, supra, 165 Conn. 61 , and State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239 -40. 5 We are persuaded that “[cjorrectly identified . . . this unpreserved claim of prosecutorial miscondu

1996In the course of the rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that while some people believe that the large number of child sexual abuse cases recently coming to the fore signifies that the system is failing, he believes that it merely symbolizes a healthy societal closet cleaning. 4 The defendant concedes that this portion of the misconduct claim was not properly preserved and thus seeks review under the doctrine of State v. Evans, supra, 165 Conn. 61 , and State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239 -40. 5 We are persuaded that “[cjorrectly identified . . . this unpreserved claim of prosecutorial miscondu

1996In the course of the rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that while some people believe that the large number of child sexual abuse cases recently coming to the fore signifies that the system is failing, he believes that it merely symbolizes a healthy societal closet cleaning. 4 The defendant concedes that this portion of the misconduct claim was not properly preserved and thus seeks review under the doctrine of State v. Evans, supra, 165 Conn. 61 , and State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239 -40. 5 We are persuaded that “[cjorrectly identified . . . this unpreserved claim of prosecutorial miscondu

1973Fournier v. Pinto, 408 F.2d 539 (3d Cir.), habeas corpus granted due to a combination of the prosecutor’s misconduct and error in the charge.