Rowe v. Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven

PALMER, J., with whom ZARELLA, J.,

joins, concurring. The majority concludes that counsel for the plaintiff in error, Lamar Rowe (plaintiff), properly objected to the trial court’s second contempt finding on the ground that that finding violated the common-law prohibition against multiple findings of contempt arising out of a witness’ blanket refusal to answer questions or refusal to answer repeated questions pertaining to the same area or subject of inquiry. Having determined that *677this claim was preserved for purposes of appeal, the majority resolves the claim in favor of the plaintiff. I…