Board of Education of Town of Wallingford v. Local 1282, District 1, Communications Workers of America

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Board of Education of Town of Wallingford v. Local 1282, District 1, Communications Workers of America

632 A.2d 688, 227 Conn. 909, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 353

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedSeptember 15, 1993

DocketSC 14835

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 632 A.2d 688 (Board of Education of Town of Wallingford v. Local 1282, District 1, Communications Workers of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Education of Town of Wallingford v. Local 1282, District 1, Communications Workers of America, 632 A.2d 688, 227 Conn. 909, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 353 (Colo. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 629 (AC 11160), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the provisions for service of process set forth in General Statutes § 52-57 (e) are mandatory rather than permissive?

“2. Should the Appellate Court have considered the defendant’s argument, raised for the first time in its reply brief, that service of process was not required to confer jurisdiction on the trial court to hear the plaintiff’s application to vacate?”

[910]*910The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14835. Decided September 15, 1993* Lawrence J. Campane, in support of the petition. Anne Goldstein, in opposition.

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

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 629 (AC 11160), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the provisions for service of process set forth in General Statutes § 52-57 (e) are mandatory rather than permissive?

“2. Should the Appellate Court have considered the defendant’s argument, raised for the first time in its reply brief, that service of process was not required to confer jurisdiction on the trial court to hear the plaintiff’s application to vacate?”

[910]*910The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14835. Decided September 15, 1993* Lawrence J. Campane, in support of the petition. Anne Goldstein, in opposition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 A.2d 688, 227 Conn. 909, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-education-of-town-of-wallingford-v-local-1282-district-1-conn-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack