Legal Opinion

Roos v. Roos

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided August 10, 2004No. AC 24537PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

FLYNN, J.

The defendant, Dale Roos, Sr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding him in contempt and issuing certain postjudgment orders in response to the motion to show cause filed by the plaintiff, Michele Roos. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) ordered a repayment schedule without making a finding that he had the ability to pay and (3) applied the incorrect burden of proof with regard to the finding of contempt.1 We affirm the judgment.

*417The following facts are relevant…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Amodio v. AmodioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  2. Jewett v. JewettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
  3. Schmidt v. SchmidtSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  4. Clement v. ClementConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
  5. Roberts v. RobertsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. TaylorConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
  2. Stechel v. FosterConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
  3. Sousa v. SousaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2016
  4. Reinke v. SingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2018
  5. Lawrence v. CordsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016

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

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

Powered by the Exa API