Home/Supreme Court of Connecticut/Mayock v. Superintendent, Norwich State Hospital

Mayock v. Superintendent, Norwich State Hospital

224 A.2d 544, 154 Conn. 704
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided November 23, 1966·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus is defective because it fails to state any basis for a claim of illegal confinement. Practice Book § 451. It also ignores the requirements of Practice Book § 452. If the objective of the plaintiff is to obtain an adjudication that his present mental condition does not require his confinement, he is entitled to be heard on that issue. But if he chooses habeas corpus rather than other available remedies, his application must set forth specific grounds for the issuance of the writ.

There is no error.

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

Mayock v. Superintendent, Norwich State Hospital, 224 A.2d 544, 154 Conn. 704 (Colo. 1966).

224 A.2d 544 (Mayock v. Superintendent, Norwich State Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Saunders v. Warden, No. Cv 02-046 4256s (May 3, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 6214 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Marra v. Warden Cheshire, No. Cv 02 463847s (May 2, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 5627 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Vincenzo v. Warden
599 A.2d 31 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1991)
MacRi v. Hayes
456 A.2d 1186 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1983)
Fasulo v. Arafeh
378 A.2d 553 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1977)
Kirwan v. State
320 A.2d 837 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1974)
Flaherty v. Warden
229 A.2d 362 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1967)