Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State v. KOMISARJEVSKY
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided August 23, 2011No. SC 18797Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
ZARELLA, J.,
with whom McLACHLAN, J., joins,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s decision to treat the petition of the defendant, Joshua Komisarjevsky, for certification to appeal from the order of the Appellate Court as a petition for review pursuant General Statutes § 52-265a. I instead would directly address the issues presented in the petition for certification and conclude that the order of the trial court from which the defendant appealed should be subject to interlocutory review pursuant to State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- State v. CurcioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- State v. AyalaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Hall v. Gilbert & Bennett Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- State v. ParkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.