Nesmith v. Michelsen

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Nesmith v. Michelsen

702 A.2d 138, 243 Conn. 237, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 435

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedNovember 4, 1997

DocketSC 15726

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 702 A.2d 138 (Nesmith v. Michelsen) 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

Nesmith v. Michelsen, 702 A.2d 138, 243 Conn. 237, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 435 (Colo. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court, having heard oral argument in this case, has determined in the exercise of its supervisory powers over the administration of justice that the issues presented should not be adjudicated without the presence, as a party, of the workers’ compensation insurer of the intervening plaintiff, T and S Investments, Ltd., doing business as Temporary Labor Corporation.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with direction to cite in as a party the workers’ compensation insurer of the intervening plaintiff, to resolve the issues in the case again, after having heard from all of the parties, and to determine, by stipulation or otherwise, including an evidentiary hearing if necessary, the reasons why the workers’ compensation commissioner did not approve the stipulation presented to him. We retain jurisdiction over this appeal for purposes of any further appellate proceedings, without the necessity of filing another appeal.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court, having heard oral argument in this case, has determined in the exercise of its supervisory powers over the administration of justice that the issues presented should not be adjudicated without the presence, as a party, of the workers’ compensation insurer of the intervening plaintiff, T and S Investments, Ltd., doing business as Temporary Labor Corporation.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with direction to cite in as a party the workers’ compensation insurer of the intervening plaintiff, to resolve the issues in the case again, after having heard from all of the parties, and to determine, by stipulation or otherwise, including an evidentiary hearing if necessary, the reasons why the workers’ compensation commissioner did not approve the stipulation presented to him. We retain jurisdiction over this appeal for purposes of any further appellate proceedings, without the necessity of filing another appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 A.2d 138, 243 Conn. 237, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesmith-v-michelsen-conn-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack