Durso v. Misiorek
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Per curiam
This is an appeal1 by the state from a judgment rendered after a jury found that the defendant was not the father of the plaintiffs child.
The action was commenced by filing a verified petition, with summons and order in the appropriate geographical area of the Superior Court, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-160. During the course of the trial, the plaintiff requested a continuance in order to call her husband as a witness to rebut the defendant’s testimony that the plaintiff had visited her husband during the period when conception occurred. At the time of conception, the plaintiff was…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. CurcioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Ardmare Construction Co. v. FreedmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Kennedy v. WalkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
- State v. AudetSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Mendez v. MendezSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Durso v. MisiorekSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Durso v. MisiorekConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
- Durso v. MisiorekSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985