Legal Opinion
Rozbicki v. Huybrechts
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided June 26, 1990No. 8084PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, J.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a party to a civil action has a right to be present during jury selection. We conclude that he has this right and that the trial court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for a continuance so that he could be present.
The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff, a practicing attorney, was in Hartford representing a client in the trial of a law suit when the present case, in which he is the plaintiff, was reached for trial in Litchfield. Through his counsel, the plaintiff requested a continuance in the Litchfield case so that he could be…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hopt v. People of Territory of UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- United States v. George Crutcher, Hampton C. Hazel, Also Known as Robert Jones, and John PayneCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
- State v. DrakefordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Boone v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Colt v. EvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- State v. JupinConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- In re Jonathan P.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1990
- Rozbicki v. HuybrechtsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- In re Christopher A.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.