Legal Opinion

Durso v. Misiorek

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided January 22, 1985No. 2014PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. State v. CurcioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
  2. Ardmare Construction Co. v. FreedmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
  3. Kennedy v. WalkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
  4. State v. AudetSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
  5. Mendez v. MendezSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Durso v. MisiorekSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
  2. Durso v. MisiorekConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
  3. Durso v. MisiorekSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API