Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mickey v. Mickey

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 21, 2009No. SC 18126Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

NORCOTT, J., with whom KATZ, J.,

joins, concurring and dissenting. Although I concur with parts I and II A of the majority opinion, as well as the majority’s discussion of the relationship between General Statutes § § 46b-81 and 46b-82 in part IIB of its opinion, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s ultimate conclusion in part II B. In my view, we are not called upon in this appeal to determine which method of distributing marital assets would have been the most appropriate in the circumstances of this case. Rather, we are required to decide the limited question of whether § 46b-81, as…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Raymond Feifer, Nicholas Pocchia, and Edwin Molina v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, Daily News, L.P., and Daily News, L.P. Benefits ProgramCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
  2. Krafick v. KrafickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  3. Bender v. BenderSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
  4. Bornemann v. BornemannSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  5. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999

8 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