Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities Ex Rel. Arnold v. Forvil, 25 A.3d 632 (2011)

Citation: Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities Ex Rel. Arnold v. Forvil, 25 A.3d 632 (2011)
Parent Document: Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities Ex Rel. Arnold v. Forvil, 25 A.3d 632 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2011-08-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2318907/commission-on-human-rights-oppo... ↗

Full Text

1,226 chars

following a trial and the submission of posttrial briefs, the parties attended a hearing on February 5, 2001. Id., 467. On June 5, 2001, less than 120 days after that February 5 hearing, the court issued a memorandum of decision finding that the defendant had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, but ordered the parties to appear at a hearing to address the appropriate disposition on July 24, 2001, more than 120 days after the February 5 hearing. Id. On August 22, 2001, within 120 days of the July 24 hearing, the court rendered its judgment. Id., 468. The defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court had rendered judgment outside the period prescribed by § 51-183b because it was rendered more than 120 days after the February 5 hearing. Id., 465. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that, “when the court ordered the parties to appear at a subsequent hearing ... it opened the case.” Id., 470. The Appellate Court went on to conclude that “the court opened the case . . . within 120 days from the . . . completion date of the trial. After the court conducted the additional hearing . . . the new completion date of the trial was [the date of that hearing].” Id., 473. *271 Although Ankerman

Other Sections in This Document (123)

Full Text