McCarthy v. Chromium Process Co.
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BEACH, J.
This case arises from a stipulated judgment between the plaintiff, Gina McCarthy, the commissioner of environmental protection (commissioner), and the defendant, the Chromium Process Company.1 The defendant claims that the court erred in (1) determining that, pursuant to the terms of the stipulated judgment, it lacked the authority to assess an amount of less than $25,000 for each postjudgment violation and (2) failing to address the applicability of the writ of audita querela to the issue of penalty assessment pursuant to the stipulated judgment.2 We affirm the judgment of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Barnard v. BarnardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Crews v. CrewsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Honulik v. Town of GreenwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Wallerstein v. Stew Leonard's DairySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2006
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bourland, Heflin, Alvarez, Minor & Matthews, PLC v. Rodney Heaton and Margaret Heaton and Loeb PropertiesCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2012
- Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. BuhlConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018
- Fiorillo v. HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2022
- Federal National Mortgage Assn. v. BuhlConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018