Cynthia A. Violano et al. v. Henry J. Fernandez et al.
Factual and Procedural Background
The provided opinion is a short procedural order from the Supreme Court of Connecticut. The plaintiffs filed a petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court decision reported as 88 Conn. App. 1 (AC 24918). The Supreme Court granted the petition for certification, but limited the grant to a single issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's striking of counts two, three and four of the complaint?" The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17424. The opinion lists William F. Gallagher and Hugh D. Hughes as counsel in support of the petition. The opinion is dated May 4, 2005. The text contains no factual account of the underlying dispute or the substantive facts that gave rise to the lawsuit.
Legal Issues Presented
- "Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's striking of counts two, three and four of the complaint?"
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| 88 Conn. App. 1 (AC 24918) |
The opinion does not state the rule or principle cited for this precedent. |
The opinion does not specify how this precedent was applied by the court; it is identified as the Appellate Court decision from which certification for appeal was sought. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
This document is a procedural order granting certification for appeal and contains no substantive legal analysis. The Supreme Court's action was to grant the petition for certification limited to the specific issue concerning whether the Appellate Court properly affirmed the trial court's striking of counts two, three and four. No step-by-step legal reasoning, discussion of legal standards, or explanation of the merits of the underlying ruling appears in the provided text.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition for certification for appeal, limited to the question whether the Appellate Court properly affirmed the trial court's striking of counts two, three and four of the complaint.
Implications: The direct effect of this order is to permit review by the Supreme Court on the limited issue specified. The opinion contains no discussion of broader legal consequences and does not purport to announce any new legal precedent; it is a procedural grant of certification limited to a single issue.
Docket: SC 17424. Date Decided: May 4, 2005.
Counsel Listed: William F. Gallagher and Hugh D. Hughes (in support of the petition).
Disposition Notation in Document: ORDERS.
Show full summary ...