Amodio v. Amodio

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Amodio v. Amodio

754 A.2d 160, 253 Conn. 910, 2000 Conn. LEXIS 179

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Amodio v. Amodio. Read the opinion of the Court — 247 Conn. 724 →

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided May 18, 2000·No. SC 16312·Published

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 56 Conn. App. 459 (AC 15692), is granted, limited to the following issues:

[911]*911The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16312. Donald L. Altschuler, in support of the petition. Decided May 18, 2000

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court improperly exercised its authority under General Statutes § 46b-86 (a) and improperly applied McHugh v. McHugh, 27 Conn. App. 724, 609 A.2d 250 (1992)?

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the child support order in this case was nonmodifiable?”

VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 56 Conn. App. 459 (AC 15692), is granted, limited to the following issues:

[911]*911The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16312. Donald L. Altschuler, in support of the petition. Decided May 18, 2000

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court improperly exercised its authority under General Statutes § 46b-86 (a) and improperly applied McHugh v. McHugh, 27 Conn. App. 724, 609 A.2d 250 (1992)?

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the child support order in this case was nonmodifiable?”

VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Amodio v. Amodio, 754 A.2d 160, 253 Conn. 910, 2000 Conn. LEXIS 179 (Colo. 2000).

Pincite

754 A.2d 160 (Amodio v. Amodio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related