Maloney v. State

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Maloney v. State

426 A.2d 288, 179 Conn. 309, 1979 Conn. LEXIS 961

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 4, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 426 A.2d 288 (Maloney v. State) 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

Maloney v. State, 426 A.2d 288, 179 Conn. 309, 1979 Conn. LEXIS 961 (Colo. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s counsel during oral argument before us disclosed that the three orders of commitment which are the subject of these appeals have expired. Thus, any controversy which may have existed between the parties regarding the power of the juvenile court to impose in its order of commitment conditions, which the commissioner of the department of children and youth services was to follow regarding the care of the minor delinquent children involved, necessarily became moot. Appellate jurisdiction requires that there be an actual controversy; it is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions. United Liquors of Connecticut, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 443, 179 Conn. 211, 212, 425 A.2d 1262 (1979); Harkins v. Driscoll, 165 Conn. 407, 409, 334 A.2d 901 (1973).

The appeal of the defendant in each case is dismissed as moot.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s counsel during oral argument before us disclosed that the three orders of commitment which are the subject of these appeals have expired. Thus, any controversy which may have existed between the parties regarding the power of the juvenile court to impose in its order of commitment conditions, which the commissioner of the department of children and youth services was to follow regarding the care of the minor delinquent children involved, necessarily became moot. Appellate jurisdiction requires that there be an actual controversy; it is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions. United Liquors of Connecticut, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 443, 179 Conn. 211, 212, 425 A.2d 1262 (1979); Harkins v. Driscoll, 165 Conn. 407, 409, 334 A.2d 901 (1973).

The appeal of the defendant in each case is dismissed as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 A.2d 288, 179 Conn. 309, 1979 Conn. LEXIS 961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maloney-v-state-conn-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack