Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Kinsey v. Pacific Employers Insurance

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 7, 2006No. SC 17182Published

1ConcurrenceZarella, J.

Although I agree with and join in the reasoning of the majority in all respects, I write separately to disassociate myself from the unwarranted speculation in the concurrence of Justice Borden that a coordinate branch of government may have acted unconstitutionally in enacting General Statutes § l-2z. I am concerned that Justice Borden’s concurring opinion represents a significant and unfortunate departure from our jurisprudence of restraint and deference. In the present case, it is clear from the record that neither *420party has claimed that § l-2z is unconstitutional, and, indeed, the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
  2. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  3. Binette v. SaboSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  4. Moore v. McNamaraSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
  5. State v. OnofrioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API