Legal Opinion
Cato v. Cato
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 22, 1993No. 14546PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBerdon, J.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether an order of notice is necessary to meet the jurisdictional requirements of General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 46b-46,1 the domestic relations long-arm statute. In *3this action for a dissolution of marriage, the defendant, who resided in Texas and received in-hand service of process by a process server in Texas, challenges the jurisdiction of the court because process was not served pursuant to an order of notice by a judge or clerk of the Superior Court.
The following facts are undisputed. The defendant, Herbert J. Cato, and the plaintiff, Judith A. Cato,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- Weinberg v. ARA Vending Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Jones v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Cato v. CatoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Thomason v. Chemical BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Hibner v. BrueningConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- State v. HarrisConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- Pelletier v. GoodnoffConnecticut Superior Court · 1998
- Alldred v. AlldredConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.