Legal Opinion
State v. Rapuano
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 14, 1984No. 11329PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShea, J.
The defendant appeals from a trial court order granting the state’s motion to disqualify his counsel.1 In his appeal he claims that a substantial change in circumstances has removed the problem that led the trial court to disqualify his attorney, thereby requiring reversal without reaching the merits. He also maintains that if we decide the merits of the appeal, we should reverse because the court would not permit a limited waiver of the sixth amendment right to counsel in order to avoid the order of disqualification.
There is no substantial dispute as to the facts: Attorney Robert Casale had…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. RisjordSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Michael F. Armstrong v. Clovis McAlpinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- State v. ReedSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State v. BeckenbachSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Burger & Burger, Inc. v. MurrenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- State v. BeckenbachConnecticut Appellate Court · 1984
- Enquire Printing & Publishing Co. v. O'ReillySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Herrmann v. Summer Plaza Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.