Dickinson v. Mullaney

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Dickinson v. Mullaney

895 A.2d 788, 277 Conn. 913, 2006 Conn. LEXIS 72

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided March 2, 2006·No. SC 17614·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The respondents’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 92 Conn. App. 689 (AC 25704), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court had improperly applied the defense of laches in this habeas corpus action?”

*914 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17614. Jo Anne Sulik, senior assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition. Temmy Ann Pieszak, chief of habeas corpus services, in opposition. Decided March 2, 2006

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

The respondents’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 92 Conn. App. 689 (AC 25704), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court had improperly applied the defense of laches in this habeas corpus action?”

*914 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17614. Jo Anne Sulik, senior assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition. Temmy Ann Pieszak, chief of habeas corpus services, in opposition. Decided March 2, 2006

Dickinson v. Mullaney, 895 A.2d 788, 277 Conn. 913, 2006 Conn. LEXIS 72 (Colo. 2006).

Pincite

895 A.2d 788 (Dickinson v. Mullaney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related