Legal Opinion

Durso v. Misiorek

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 29, 1986No. 12741PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSantaniello, J.

The sole issue on this appeal after certification from the Appellate Court is whether, in a paternity action involving a public assistance recipient under General Statutes § 46b-160,1 the attorney general is a party to the proceedings and has standing to appeal even though he was not served with the peti*658tion and did not participate at trial. The plaintiff, Donna Durso, brought this action against the defendant, Wayne Misiorek, to establish the paternity of the plaintiff’s minor child. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. After the court, Hendel, J.,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Little v. StreaterSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. State v. CurcioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
  3. State v. TorrenceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  4. Ardmare Construction Co. v. FreedmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
  5. Petrowski v. Norwich Free AcademySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Newman v. NewmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  2. Dunham v. DunhamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  3. Langan v. WeeksConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
  4. Washington Trust Co. v. SmithConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
  5. Gold v. NewmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989

4 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