Legal Opinion
State v. Ross
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 11, 1996No. 15330PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Per curiam
The dispositive issue in this appeal presenting seven questions of law reserved to this court by the trial court is whether, under all of the circumstances presented by this death penalty case, this court should answer the reserved questions in advance of further plenary proceedings at trial.2 Exercising the discretion vested in this court by General Statutes § 52-2353 and Practice Book §§ 4147 and 4148;4 see State v. *334Sanabria, 192 Conn. 671, 683-85, 474 A.2d 760 (1984); we conclude that it would be imprudent for us to answer the reserved questions and, therefore, we decline to do so.
The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. RossSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- State v. SanabriaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States, Inc. v. O'NeillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- State v. ZachSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Congress & Daggett, Inc. v. Seamless Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Michael B. Ross, by His Next Friend, Donna Dunham v. Theresa Lantz, Commissioner of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- Ball v. Wilshire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
- Capel v. Plymouth Rock Assurance Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- Ball v. Wilshire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
- State v. Ross, No. Cr21-20300 (May 23, 1997)Connecticut Superior Court · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.