State v. Marsala
State of Connecticut v. Michael J. Marsala
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 27 Conn. App. 291 , is granted, limited to the following issues:
“1. Whether the Appellate Court correctly treated a motion for reargument as a motion for reconsideration, and in thereafter deciding a question of substance, which reversed a trial court conclusion, without the benefit of either briefs or oral argument?
“2. Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the search warrant affidavit should be evaluated under the principles of State v. Barton, 219 Conn. 529 , 594 A.2d 917 (1991)?
“3. If the principles of State v. Barton, supra, are applicable to this case, must the validity of the warrant first be reviewed by a trial court, rather than an appellate court?
“4. Did the Appellate Court have jurisdiction/authority to issue, sua sponte, an amended rescript ( 26 Conn. App. 423 ) approximately sixteen months after the issuance of its initial rescript?
“5. Did the state waive or forfeit its right to assert the warrant’s validity in light of the state’s prior concessions and prior failure to raise this claim as an alternate ground?”
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.