Legal Opinion

Dickinson v. Mullaney

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided December 27, 2005No. AC 25704PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BISHOP, J.

The petitioner, Martin F. Dickinson, appeals from the habeas court’s judgment denying his amended petition for habeas corpus and holding that his claims were barred by laches. On appeal, the petitioner claims (1) that the court improperly concluded that the equitable defense of laches is available in a habeas corpus action and (2) that, even if laches can be interposed as a defense to a habeas claim, the court improperly applied laches in this instance. Because the petitioner failed to attack before the habeas court the legal viability of laches as a defense in a habeas…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  2. Johnson v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  3. Summerville v. Warden, State PrisonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  4. Negron v. WardenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  5. Florian v. LengeConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. SutphinNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Dickinson v. MullaneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  3. Dickinson v. MullaneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  4. State v. SutphinNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API