State v. Komisarjevsky

21 A.3d 465, 301 Conn. 920, 2011 Conn. LEXIS 240
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJune 8, 2011
DocketSC 18797
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 A.3d 465 (State v. Komisarjevsky) 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
State v. Komisarjevsky, 21 A.3d 465, 301 Conn. 920, 2011 Conn. LEXIS 240 (Colo. 2011).

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 33360) is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Does the trial court’s decision to grant an interve-nor’s motion to unseal a ‘witness list’ constitute a final judgment permitting interlocutory review?
“2. If the decision is an appealable final judgment, did the trial court improperly grant the intervenor’s motion to unseal the ‘witness list?’ ”
ROGERS, C. J., and NORCOTT and ZARELLA, Js., would deny the defendant’s petition for certification for appeal.

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

Related

State v. KOMISARJEVSKY
25 A.3d 613 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 A.3d 465, 301 Conn. 920, 2011 Conn. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-komisarjevsky-conn-2011.