Doe v. Christoforo

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Doe v. Christoforo

871 A.2d 1027, 273 Conn. 920, 2005 Conn. LEXIS 132

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided March 31, 2005·No. SC 17400·Published

Opinion

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 359 (AC 23908), is granted, limited to the following issue:

[921]*921The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17400. William F. Gallagher and Da,vid McCarry, in support of the petition. Eric J. Stockman and Maureen Sullivan Dinnan, in opposition. Decided March 31, 2005

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court properly excluded the defendant’s statement from evidence?”

SULLIVAN, C. 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 plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 359 (AC 23908), is granted, limited to the following issue:

[921]*921The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17400. William F. Gallagher and Da,vid McCarry, in support of the petition. Eric J. Stockman and Maureen Sullivan Dinnan, in opposition. Decided March 31, 2005

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court properly excluded the defendant’s statement from evidence?”

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

Doe v. Christoforo, 871 A.2d 1027, 273 Conn. 920, 2005 Conn. LEXIS 132 (Colo. 2005).

Pincite

871 A.2d 1027 (Doe v. Christoforo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related