Martone v. Martone

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Martone v. Martone

617 A.2d 166, 224 Conn. 909, 1992 Conn. LEXIS 395

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided October 30, 1992·No. SC 14628·Published

Opinion

The plaintiff’s cross petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 28 Conn. App. 208 (AC 10420), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Having determined that a portion of the lump sum alimony award must be set aside, did the Appellate [910] Court properly remand for a modified judgment rather than for a new hearing, or for a trial on all of the financial issues?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14628. Steven D. Ecker, in support of the petition. Max F. Brunswick, in opposition. Decided October 30, 1992

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

The plaintiff’s cross petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 28 Conn. App. 208 (AC 10420), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Having determined that a portion of the lump sum alimony award must be set aside, did the Appellate [910] Court properly remand for a modified judgment rather than for a new hearing, or for a trial on all of the financial issues?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14628. Steven D. Ecker, in support of the petition. Max F. Brunswick, in opposition. Decided October 30, 1992

Martone v. Martone, 617 A.2d 166, 224 Conn. 909, 1992 Conn. LEXIS 395 (Colo. 1992).

Pincite

617 A.2d 166 (Martone v. Martone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related