In re Steven M.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

In re Steven M.

797 A.2d 515, 260 Conn. 916, 2002 Conn. LEXIS 171

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedApril 19, 2002

DocketSC 16732

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 797 A.2d 515 (In re Steven M.) 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

In re Steven M., 797 A.2d 515, 260 Conn. 916, 2002 Conn. LEXIS 171 (Colo. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The petition for certification by the commissioner of children and families for appeal from the Appellate Court, 68 Conn. App. 427 (AC 20866), is granted, limited to the following issues:

[917]*917The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16732. Susan Quinn Cobb, assistant attorney general, in support of the petition. Sandra A. Trionfini, in opposition. Decided April 19, 2002

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that: (1) the appeal was not moot because it met the test of ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’; (2) under General Statutes § 17a-12 (a), the court must determine that the requested transfer is in the juvenile’s best interest; and (3) the court was required to determine the juvenile’s competency before transferring him from Long Lane School to John R. Manson Youth Institution?”

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

The petition for certification by the commissioner of children and families for appeal from the Appellate Court, 68 Conn. App. 427 (AC 20866), is granted, limited to the following issues:

[917]*917The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16732. Susan Quinn Cobb, assistant attorney general, in support of the petition. Sandra A. Trionfini, in opposition. Decided April 19, 2002

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that: (1) the appeal was not moot because it met the test of ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’; (2) under General Statutes § 17a-12 (a), the court must determine that the requested transfer is in the juvenile’s best interest; and (3) the court was required to determine the juvenile’s competency before transferring him from Long Lane School to John R. Manson Youth Institution?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

797 A.2d 515, 260 Conn. 916, 2002 Conn. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-steven-m-conn-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack