Legal Opinion
Jordan v. Jordan
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided November 23, 2010No. AC 31450PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
2Per curiam
In this marital dissolution action, the defendant, Diana M. Jordan, claims that she is entitled to a new trial because the trial court impermissibly rendered its judgment more than 120 days after trial by issuing two corrected memoranda of decision.1 See General Statutes § 51-183b.2 The defendant’s claim, however, is governed by General Statutes § 52-212a,3 which permits a trial court to open and to correct its judgment within four months. See State v. Wilson, 199 Conn. 417, 437, 513 A.2d 620 (1986). We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The plaintiff, James F. Jordan…
3Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Frank v. StreeterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Commissioner of Transportation v. Rocky Mountain, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Rocque v. Light Sources, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Cowles v. CowlesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by7 opinions
- Olszewski v. JordanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- State v. DaytonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
- Bonito v. BonitoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- Abele Tractor & Equipment Co. v. Sono Stone & Gravel, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2014
- Bank of Stamford v. SchlesingerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2015
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.