Legal Opinion
Presidential Capital Corp. v. Reale
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 29, 1997No. 15406PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*625 Opinion
PETERS, J.
The general rule established by our case law is that an interlocutory order requiring a witness to submit to discovery is not a final judgment and, therefore, is not immediately appealable. The sole question in this certified appeal is whether General Statutes § 52-351b1 provides a different rule, authorizing immedi*626ate appellate review, in the event of a trial court’s denial of a protective order to shield a witness from discovery in statutory postjudgment proceedings.
In an action for breach of contract for failure to pay a commission, the plaintiff, Presidential Capital…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- State v. CurcioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & TrantoloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- State v. AyalaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Saturn Construction Co. v. Premier Roofing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. SalmonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Green Rock Ridge, Inc. v. KobernatSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Ingels v. SaldanaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- State v. FieldingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.