State v. Komisarjevsky

21 A.3d 465, 301 Conn. 920, 2011 Conn. LEXIS 240
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided June 8, 2011·No. SC 18797·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

21 A.3d 465 (State v. Komisarjevsky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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