Connecticut Writ Of Error
the superior court to the supreme court. (b) No writ of error may be brought in any civil or criminal proceeding for the correction of any error where (1) the error might have been reviewed by process of appeal, or by way of certification, or (2) the parties, by failure timely to seek a transfer or otherwise, have consented to have the case determined by a court or tribunal from whose judgment there is no right of appeal or opportunity for certification. (c) A writ of error may be brought to the supreme court to review a proceeding that is not governed by subsection (b) of this section including (1) a decision binding on an aggrieved nonparty; (2) a summary decision of criminal contempt; (3) a denial of transfer of a small claims action to the regular docket; and (4) as otherwise necessary or appropriate in aid of the jurisdiction of the supreme court in accordance with its usages and practices. 72-3. Applicable Procedure (a) Upon payment in the trial court of the filing fee, the writ, if in proper form [and if presented for signature within two weeks after the rendition of the judgment or decree complained of], shall be allowed and signed by a judge or clerk of the court in which the judgment or decree was rendered. The writ shall be presented for signature within twenty days after the rendition of the judgment or decree complained of but shall be signed by the clerk even if not presented in a timely manner. Failure without cause to present the writ in a timely manner may be ground for dismissal of the writ by the supreme court. (b) The writ shall be served and returned as other civil process, except that (1) the writ shall be served at least thirty days, inclusive, before the return day, and (2) shall be returned to the appellate clerk at least twenty days before the return day. The return days of the supreme court are the first Tuesday of each month except the months of July, August and September. (c) The writ shall be deemed filed the day it is returned. The appellate clerk shall forthwith give notice to all parties of the filing of the writ. (d) Within twenty days after filing the writ, the plaintiff in error sha
902 - Appeals to the Supreme Court Section 52-263 - Appeals from Superior Court. Exceptions. View the 2014 Connecticut General Statutes | View Previous Versions of the Connecticut General Statutes 2012 Connecticut General StatutesTitle 52 - Civil ActionsChapter 902 - Appeals to the Supreme CourtSection 52-263 - Appeals from Superior Court. Exceptions. CT Gen Stat § 52-263 (2012) What's This? Upon the trial of all matters of fact in any cause or action in the Superior Court, whether to the court or jury, or before any judge thereof when the jurisdiction https://www.cga.ct.gov/lrc/WritsOfError/writsoferrordraftrules.htm of any action or proceeding is vested in him, if either party is aggrieved by the decision of the court or judge upon any question or questions of law arising in the trial, including the denial of a motion to set aside a verdict, he may appeal to the court having jurisdiction from the final judgment of the court or of such judge, or from http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2012/title-52/chapter-902/section-52-263 the decision of the court granting a motion to set aside a verdict, except in small claims cases, which shall not be appealable, and appeals as provided in sections 8-8 and 8-9.(1949 Rev., S. 8003; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 118; 1961, P.A. 509, S. 2; P.A. 74-183, S. 93, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 139, 681; P.A. 77-347, S. 8, 11; P.A. 78-280, S. 105, 127; P.A. 82-160, S. 135; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29, S. 8, 82; P.A. 89-356, S. 8.)History: 1959 act deleted provision for appeal from civil cause or action in municipal court; 1961 act deleted provision excepting summary process from coverage.; P.A. 74-183 deleted reference to causes or actions in court of common pleas, effective December 31, 1974; P.A. 76-436 added exception re Sec. 52-7, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 77-347 deleted exception added by P.A. 76-436 and clarified provision re appeals to supreme court by adding exception re Secs. 51-164t, 51-164v and 51-197b; P.A. 78-280 made minor change in wording; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and replaced provisions concerning the right to appeal to the supreme court “except as provided in sections 51-164t, 51-164v and 51-197b” with exceptions for small cl
Decisions By Practice Area Current Edition Most Recent Special Sections Editorial Calendar Professional Announcements GC New England After Hours Columnists / OP-ED Editorials http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=900005381613/Appellate-Bar-Supports-Writ-Of-Error-Revision Letters To The Editor Place A Classified Browse Classifieds Browse Law http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-superior-court/1595446.html Jobs Book Center CLE ALM Legal Intelligence Smart Litigator Verdict Search CT Expert Witnesses Elite Trial Lawyers Top News Appellate Bar Supports Writ Of Error Revision 'McDonnell' and the Future of Political Corruption Cases State Justices Toss $12M Boy Scout Sex Abuse Verdict Firm Award connecticut writ Seeks to Perpetuate Support for Community Service Appellate Bar Supports Writ Of Error Revision Bill would confirm Supreme Court's common law power Kellie A. Wagner, The Connecticut Law Tribune March 10, 2003 reprints Linkedin Facebook Twitter Google+ Share With Email Send Thank you for sharing! Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided. connecticut writ of Legislation introduced this session that would "explicitly recognize" the state Supreme Court's authority over writs of error has the backing of appellate attorneys, who say clarification is needed between standards set by statute and those followed by the judiciary. ADD COMMENT Recommended for You loading... Loading Next Article... About Connecticut Law Tribune Contact Connecticut Law Tribune Advertise With Us Sitemap Connect With Us Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Google+ RSS ALM Publications Law.com The American Lawyer The Asian Lawyer International Litigation Daily Corporate Counsel Legaltech News The National Law Journal Legal Times The Supreme Court Brief Commercial Litigation Insider Connecticut Law Tribune Daily Business Review (FL) Delaware Law Weekly Delaware Business Court Insider Daily Report (GA) The Legal Intelligencer (PA) New Jersey Law Journal New York Law Journal The Recorder (CA) Texas Lawyer About ALM Product Solutions Events & Conferences CLE Law Catalog Reprints Lawjobs.com Mobile App Customer Support ALM User License Agreement Privacy Policy [New] Copyright 2016. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
Law Technology Forms Lawyer Marketing Corporate Counsel Law Students JusticeMail Newsletters FindLaw Caselaw Connecticut CT Super. Ct. Daniel Banks et al. v. Florence Eliza Banks et al. Daniel Banks et al. v. Florence Eliza Banks et al. ResetAA Font size: Print Superior Court of Connecticut. Daniel Banks et al. v. Florence Eliza Banks et al. FSTCV065002648S Decided: January 24, 2012 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLEADINGS # 171, 176 AND 180On October 27, 2006, the plaintiffs, Daniel Banks, individually and as parent and next friend of the minor plaintiffs Alena B. Banks, Keelin B. Banks, and Aiden C. Banks, filed an action for partition and an accounting, against the defendants, Florence Elizabeth Banks, Cassandra Banks, Layla Banks, Philip W. Banks, Therese Banks a/k/a Therese Mines, Christian A. Mines, Adam Mines, Kevin Mattei, and Robert Farrar. The long procedural history of this case is detailed in this court's July 16, 2010 decision, in which it granted the committee's motion for approval of the contract of sale and motion for possession of the subject premises located at 9 Miltiades Avenue in Greenwich. In summary, on August 5, 2008, the court granted a judgment of partition by sale against the defendants, and on November 17, 2008, the parties filed a stipulated judgment in court indicating that Florence Elizabeth Banks (the defendant) and Cassandra Banks would leave the property. Nicholas Granitto, a prospective buyer, signed a purchase and sale agreement for the subject premises on November 26, 2009.Despite the fact that judgment was rendered in this case over three years ago and a buyer entered into a sales contract for the property more than two years ago, both parties have continued filing numerous pleadings. At a hearing before this court on September 30, 2011, the court entertained argument on the plaintiffs' motion for supplemental judgment (pleading number 171). Before the court