Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bysiewicz v. Dinardo

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 18, 2010No. SC 18612Published

1Concurrence

BISHOP, J., with whom PALMER, J.,

joins, concurring. I agree with the majority’s analysis concerning the plaintiffs standing to seek declaratory relief, as well as its analysis of the constitutionality of General Statutes § 3-124.1 also agree that the plaintiff, Susan Bysiewicz, does not meet the statutory qualifications for the office of attorney general of the state of Connecticut because the trial testimony established that, in her role as the secretary of the state, she did not have clients with whom she had a confidential relationship and to whom she owed a personal duty of loyalty,1 and…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Savings Bank v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. STATE BAR ASSN. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
  3. Carter v. Commission on Qualifications of Judicial AppointmentsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  4. State v. GethersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  5. O'brien's PetitionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906

10 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