Legal Opinion
State v. Salmon
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided August 10, 1999No. SC 15930PublishedCited by 91 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NORCOTT, J.
The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether a bail bondsman, who is a nonparty to the underlying criminal action, may appeal pursuant *149to General Statutes § 52-263,2 from the trial court’s order to forfeit its bond. We conclude that, as a nonparty, a bail bondsman does not have a right of appeal under § 52-263.
The record discloses the following factual and procedural history. The defendant in the underlying criminal case, Ralston Salmon, was arrested and charged with violating General Statutes §§ 21a-279 (a) and (c),3 and 21a-277 (a).4 He posted a surety bond of…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. RisjordSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- State v. CurcioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- William H. Cuddy v. Gerald P. Carmen, Administrator, General Services AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1982
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by91 opinions
- Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Millbrook Owners Ass'n v. Hamilton StandardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- State v. PareSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Burton v. MottoleseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
86 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.