1 Akinomi

Ct Appellate Court Assignment Of Cases For Ipad

 

WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 1, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC31495    HHB
DAUTI CONSTRUCTION, LLC

Shipman & Goodwin, LLP
         v.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF NEWTOWN

Robert A. Fuller

AC31496    HHB
DAUTI CONSTRUCTION, LLC

Shipman & Goodwin, LLP
         v.
WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY OF THE TOWN OF NEWTOWN

Cohen & Wolf, P.C.

AC31466    N05
IN RE: JOCQUYCE C.

David B. Rozwaski
Renee Bevacqua-Bollier, Assistant Attorney General
Counsel for Minor Child: John Anthony Radziunas, LLC
Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed
Counsel for Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed

2:00 P.M.

AC32100    H12
IN RE SUELAKA G.

Kathryn Steadman
Trudy Condio
Susanne Dandley McNamara
Tammy Nguyen-O’Dowd, Assistant Attorney General
Patricia Burman Johnson, Assistant Attorney General
Counsel for Minor Child: Mastrianni & Seguljic
Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed
Counsel for Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed

AC31109    N05
IN RE: SUMMER S.

Gatison Law Firm
Roberta G. Willenkin
Anita Tomaselli Satti, Assistant Attorney General
Jessica Brooke Gauvin, Assistant Attorney General
Colleen B. Valentine, Assistant Attorney General
Susan T. Pearlman, Assistant Attorney General
Counsel for Minor Child: Douglas G. Lilly
Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed
Counsel for Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed

AC31672    H12
IN RE: KATIA M.

Elizabeth Knight Adams
Elisabeth Borrino
Patricia Johnson, Assistant Attorney General
Erik T. Lohr, Assistant Attorney General
Counsel for Minor Child: Judith C. Dayner
Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed
Counsel for Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed

STANDBY CASE

AC31486    FST
JONATHAN STUART ET AL.

Law Offices of Sandra J. Akoury
         v.
PETER G. SNYDER

Whitman, Breed, Abbott & Morgan, LLC
James A. Fulton

Top


THURSDAY, SEPT. 2, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC30999    UWY
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Laurie N. Feldman, Special Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
DAVID GORDON WEAVING

Heather Margaret Wood, Assistant Public Defender

AC31458    MMX     Rescheduled to 09/10 at 11am
MICHAEL URSINI
Law Office of Robert A. Ziegler
         v.
JAMES BARNETT ET AL.
Burdick & Piombino

AC31478    K09
IN RE: ALBERT M.

Sawyer Law Firm
Christopher L. Aker, Assistant Attorney General
Benjamin Zivyon, Assistant Attorney General
Counsel for Minor Child: Douglas J. Monaghan
Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed
Counsel for Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed

2:00 P.M.

AC30998    UWY
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

James A. Killen, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
GEOVANNY ZILLO

Mahaney, Geghan & Sullivan

AC31695    CPM
IN RE: AZIAH S.
IN RE: XAVIER L.
IN RE: ALEXANDER S.
IN RE: DEVON W.

Michael J. Besso, Assistant Attorney General
Valeria L. Caldwell-Gaines
Gerald B. Gore
Traci Jo Valery
Cynthia Mahon, Assistant Attorney General
Counsel for Minor Child: Trudy Condio
Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed
Counsel for Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed

AC31701    CPM
IN RE: AZIAH S.
IN RE: XAVIER L.
IN RE: ALEXANDER S.
IN RE: DEVON W.

Michael J. Besso, Assistant Attorney General
Valeria L. Caldwell-Gaines
Gerald B. Gore
Traci Jo Valery
Cynthia Mahon, Assistant Attorney General
Counsel for Minor Child: Trudy Condio
Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed
Counsel for Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed

STANDBY CASE

AC31386    HHB
ADRIANA RUIZ, PPA OLGA RIVERA

Cicchiello & Cicchiello, LLC
         v.
VICTORY PROPERTIES, LLC

Kenny Brimmer & Mahoney, LLC

Top


FRIDAY, SEPT. 3, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC31320    H17B
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Emily Graner Sexton, Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
KEITH D. SWARD

Thompson Legal Services

AC31377    TSR
RONALD HALL
Edward G. McAnaney, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Kathryn Ward Bare, Deputy
 Assistant State’s Attorney

AC31254    XNH
OXFORD HOUSE AT YALE
Law Office of Lawrence A. Levinson, P.C.
         v.
VINCENT GILLIGAN
Connecticut Legal Rights Project, Inc.

STANDBY CASE

AC30900    MMX
AARON MANOR, INC.
Edward M. Rosenthal
         v.
JANET A. IRVING
Krasow, Garlick & Hadley, LLC
Charles J. Irving

Top


TUESDAY, SEPT. 7, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC30590    HHD
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Melissa L. Streeto Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
LUIS ROJAS
Glenn W. Falk, Special Public Defender

AC31231    HHD
WILLIAM BARTLETT
Law Offices of Gerald S. Sack, LLC
         v.
THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION
Howard, Kohn, Sprague & Fitzgerald, LLP

AC31341    D03D
ARTHUR E. SCOTT, JR., EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BARBARA H. SCOTT
Cramer & Anderson LLP
         v.
MARK HEINONEN
Mark Heinonen, self-represented party

2:00 P.M.

AC30481    UWY
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Harry D. Weller, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
EDWIN MARTINEZ
Arnold V. Amore, Special Public Defender

AC30985    FST
IRA B. STECHEL
Fox Rothschild, LLP
         v.
PATRICIA LYNN FOSTER
Law Office of Joseph T. O’Connor

AC31288    XNO
ST. PAUL’S FLAX HILL CO-OPERATIVE
Law Offices of Steven G. Berg
         v.
ZENA JOHNSON ET AL.
Connecticut Legal Services, Inc., of Stamford
Sean C. Donohue

STANDBY CASE

AC30847    KNL
FERENCNE OCSAI
Samuel L. Schrager & Associates, LLC
Darin M. Colucci, pro hac vice
Elisa J. Pensavalle, LLC
         v.
EXIT 88 HOTEL, LLC, ET AL.
Hassett & George, P.C.
Sharp, Shields & Smith
Ryan, Ryan & Deluca, LLP
Williams, Walsh & O’Connor, LLC

Top


WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 8, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC30974    HHD
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Denise B. Smoker, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
MARCUS DUFFUS
Moynahan & Minnella

AC30941    TSR
BOONE SYNAKORN
Deren Manasevit, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Fairfield Post Conviction Remedy Unit

AC31770    N05
IN RE: PAUL O.
David B. Rozwaski
Patrice A. Cohan
Jessica Brooke Gauvin, Assistant Attorney General
Susan T. Pearlman, Assistant Attorney General
Frank H. LaMonaca, Assistant Attorney General
Counsel for Minor Child: Mildred Doody
Ingrid Swanson
Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed
Counsel for Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed

2:00 P.M.

AC30145    H12M
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Nancy L. Walker, Special Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
DAVID KNIGHT
David V. DeRosa

AC30757    UWY
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Margaret Gaffney Radionovas, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR
Wiggin and Dana LLP

AC31251    TTD
WILLIAM J. LANE
Riscassi & Davis, P.C.
         v.
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., ET AL.
Law Offices of James M. Pickett
Mulvey, Oliver, Gould & Crotta

STANDBY CASE

AC31315    KNO
JAMES E. GILLESPIE
Chinigo, Leone & Maruzo, LLP
         v.
MICHELLE K. JENKINS
Michelle K. Jenkins, self-represented party

Top


FRIDAY, SEPT. 10, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR DISPOSITION WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT

AC30826    TSR
EAKER MCCLENDON
Gennaro Bizzarro, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Lisa A. Riggone, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney

AC31184    FST
DOREEN L. MIKOSHI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF VINCENT JAMES CAPPIELLO
Benjamin & Gold, P.C.
         v.
PROBATE APPEAL
Brandner & Ponzini

AC31096    TSR
ALEXIS GONZALEZ
Dante R. Gallucci, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Tamara A. Grosso, Special Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney

AC31400    HHB
ALEXIAS PIZZA, LLC
Their Law Offices, LLC
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES
Louis P. Bucari, Jr.
John P. Bashar
Rupal Shah Palanki, Assistant Attorney General

AC31241    TSR
GLENN S. JACKSON
Laljeebhai R. Patel, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Denise B. Smoker, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney

AC31480    FBT
ANTONIO T. RIBEIRO
Frank P. Cannatelli
         v.
ROSEMARY WONG FRAGOSO
Rosemary Wong, self-represented party

AC31473    TSR
MICHAEL GAY
Kenneth Paul Fox, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Kathryn Ward Bare, Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney

AC30448    FST
JONAS COHLER
Schoonmaker Legal Group, LLC
         v.
LISA SELSBY COHLER
Charles Abercrombie
James H. Lee

AC31522    HHB
JASON K. CHARBONNEAU
Thompson Legal Services
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Drew S. Graham, Assistant Attorney General

AC31863    AAN
RICHARD BARRETTA, JR., ET AL.
Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman, LLP
         v.
CHRISTOPHER BARRETTA ET AL.
Brennan & Isaac

AC30885    TSR
JOSE I. POLANCO
Laljeebhai R. Patel, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Ronald G. Weller, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney

AC31308    UWY
DEBRA CRELAN
Fitzpatrick, Mariano & Santos, P.C.
         v.
ARTHUR J. CRELAN ET AL.
Loccisano, Turret & Rosenbaum Law Office

AC30898    UWY
GERALD MOLAVER ET AL.
Kantrovitz & Brownstein, P.C.
         v.
ED THOMAS A/K/A EDMOND THOMAS
Robert E. Ghent

AC31924    HHB
MARIA PENA
Lloyd S. Lowinger
Pease & Dorio, P.C.
         v.
JOAN PETANO
Rosenzweig, Fagan, Sheehan & Watson

11:00 A.M.

AC31458    MMX     Originally scheduled for 09/02 at 10am | Marked Over | Rescheduled to 9/17
MICHAEL URSINI

         v.
JAMES BARNETT ET AL.

Top


MONDAY, SEPT. 13, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC31734    HHD
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Timothy J. Sugrue, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
GANESH BHARRAT
Adele V. Patterson, Assistant Public Defender

AC31679    HHD
ROBERT J. BARNABEI CONRACTING, LLC
Terence D. Mariani
Law Offices of Robert P. Hanahan
         v.
GREATER HARTFORD JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER, INC., ET AL.
Michelson, Kane, Royster & Barger, P.C.

AC31238    LLI
WILFRED J. MEGIN
Wilfred J. Megin, self-represented party
         v.
TOWN OF NEW MILFORD
Cramer & Anderson, LLP

2:00 P.M.

AC30746    TSR
EDWARD PARKER
Kenneth Paul Fox, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Melissa L. Streeto, Assistant State’s Attorney
Angela Macchiarulo, Assistant State’s Attorney

AC30704    TSR
DUANE K. BANKS
Robert T. Rimmer, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
John A. East III, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney

AC31589    NNH
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT K. WALSH
Eric H. Opin
         v.
BARBARA NATARAJAN
Barbara Natarajan, self-represented party

STANDBY CASE

AC31331    HHD
COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Patricia A. Horgan, Assistant Attorney General
Matthew I. Levine, Assistant Attorney General
         v.
THE CHROMIUM PROCESS COMPANY, ET AL.
Levy & Droney, P.C.

Top 


TUESDAY, SEPT. 14, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC30699    TSR
NORMAN GAINES
James B. Streeto, Assistant Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Fairfield Post Conviction Remedy Unit

AC30170    TSR
WILLIAM S. DALTON
Temmy Ann Pieszak, Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Harry D. Weller, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney

AC31643    M08
IN RE: BRIAN W.
Maria A. W., self-represented party
Allen R. W., Jr., self-represented party
Allen W., Sr., self-represented party
Matthew T. Gilbride
David B. Rozwaski
Counsel for Minor Child: New Haven Legal Assistance Association
Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed
Counsel for Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed

2:00 P.M.

AC30919    TSR
DANIEL DIAZ
Michael Zariphes, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Timothy F. Costello, Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney

AC31176    FST
KINDRED NURSING CENTERS EAST L.L.C., DBA COURTLAND GARDENS HEALTH CENTER
Rosenblum Newfield, LLC
Marc S. Blubaugh, pro hac vice
Jennifer M. Turk, pro hac vice
Sara Bunke Evans, pro hac vice
         v.
ARTHUR MORIN
Fogarty, Cohen, Selby & Nemiroff, LLC

AC31630    CRD
TROY B. WILLIAMS
Troy B. Williams, self-represented party
         v.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH
Kenneth H. Kennedy, Jr., Assistant Attorney General

STANDBY CASE

AC31115    CRD
RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ
Coles, Baldwin & Kaiser, LLC
         v.
ED CONSTRUCTION, A/K/A E.D. CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.
Robert J. Sciglimpaglia, Jr.
Tracey Green Cleary
Sean M. Nourie
Lisa Guttenberg Weiss

Top


WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 15, 2010
AT 10:00 A.M.

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE DEFENDANTS’ APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANTING OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR A PREJUDGMENT REMEDY SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE APPEAL WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE SEVEN DAY APPEAL PERIOD SET FORTH IN GENERAL STATUTES § 52-278l. SEE AMBROISE v. WILLIAM RAVEIS REAL ESTATE, INC., 226 CONN. 757, 767 (1993).

(1) AC31929
MATTIA SAMMARCO ET AL.
Loricco, Trotta & Loricco, LLC
         v.
EDWARD KOSTOWSKI ET AL.
Howard, Kohn, Sprague & Fitzgerald, LLP
Robert M. Berke

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE DEFENDANT’S APPEAL FROM THE ORDER ADVISING THE COMMITTEE TO PROCEED TO CLOSING SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT BECAUSE HE FAILED TO FILE HIS MOTION TO REARGUE THE ORDER APPROVING THE SALE WITHIN THE RELEVANT APPEAL PERIOD AND THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED. SEE CONNECTICUT SAVINGS BANK v. HOWES, 9 CONN. APP. 446 (1987); SEE ALSO WELLS FARGO BANK OF MINNESOTA, N. A. v. MORGAN, 98 CONN. APP. 72 (2006).

(2) AC31986
TD BANKNORTH, N.A.
Shimkus, Murphy & Rosenberger, P.C.
         v.
DOMINGOS CARNEIRO ET AL.
Brian E. Lambeck
Terrence M. Wynne
United State’s Attorney’s Office
Law Offices of Becker & Zowine, LLC
Green & Gross, P.C.
Schectman, Halperin & Savage, LLP
Quatrella & Rizio, LLC

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE, AT THE TIME THE APPEAL WAS FILED, JUDGMENT HAD NOT BEEN RENDERED ON THE STRICKEN COMPLAINT. SEE PRACTICE BOOK §§ 10-44 AND 61-2; NORWICH v. SILVERBERG, 200 CONN. 367, 369 N.3 (1986); HOMECOMINGS v. STARBALA, 85 CONN. APP. 284, 285 N.1 (2004).

(3) AC32296
HARTFORD HOSPITAL MEDICAL PLAN
Fox Rothschild, LLP
         v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO-MOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Murphy & Karpie, LLC

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTERS, THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTY IS ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THESE APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS AND WHETHER SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED. SEE PRACTICE BOOK § 85-2.

(4) AC32336
CECELIA LEBBY
Cecelia Lebby, self-represented party
         v.
V.N.A.
No appearance

(5) AC32335
CECELIA LEBBY
Cecelia Lebby, self-represented party
         v.
MERIDEN WALLINGFORD WOMEN’S SHELTER
Gordon, Muir & Foley, LLP

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THIS APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF A FINAL JUDGMENT AS AT THE TIME THE APPEAL WAS FILED THERE WAS NO JUDGMENT ON THE STRICKEN FOURTH COUNT AND THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT REMAINED PENDING AS TO ZACHARY BUJAK, PPA, MARIA BUJAK. SEE PRACTICE BOOK § 61-3.

(6) AC31999
ZACHARY BUJAK PPA, ET AL.
Kennedy, Johnson, D’Elia & Gillooly
         v.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT ET AL.
O’Brien, Tanski & Young, LLP
Danaher, Lagnese & Sacco, P.C.

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTER, COUNSEL AND SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL TAKEN FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT’S GRANTING OF THE PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A VOLUNTARY CONSERVATOR FOR THE DEFENDANT, EDITH DIYANNO, SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT BEEN AGGRIEVED BY THAT DECISION. SEE DOYLE v. REARDON, 11 CONN. APP. 297 (1987); GRAHAM v. ESTATE OF GRAHAM, 2 CONN. APP. 251 (1984).

(7) AC32248
DONNA KINGSTON
The Gallagher Law Firm
May & Stanek, P.C.
         v.
JOHN J. CARANGELO ET AL.
Anthony N. Bendosso
Stevens, Carroll & Carveth, P.C.
Lucille Skorina, self-represented party
Claire Whelan, self-represented party
John R. Whalen, self-represented party

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTERS, COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THESE APPEALS FROM THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HOLDING THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS LIABLE FOR ANY DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF RIPENESS, BECAUSE THE EXISTENCE OF A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT HAD NOT BEEN DETERMINED AS OF THE FILING OF THESE APPEALS. SEE ESPOSITO v. SPECYALSKI, 268 CONN. 336, 346-48 (2004).

(8) AC32217, AC32235, AC32236
J.E. ROBERT COMPANY, INC.
Shipman & Goodwin, LLP
Donna Skatts
         v.
SIGNATURE PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL.
Benjamin S. Proto, Jr.
Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C.
McVane, Bellobuono, Kuzmak, Wiezalis, Bibisi & Romeo, LLC
Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff, LLC

IN THE FOLLOWING MATTERS, COUNSEL AND SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR AND GIVE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE DISPOSED OF, PRACTICE BOOK § 85-1, AND WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED, PRACTICE BOOK § 85-2, FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE DOCUMENTS LISTED OR TO PURSUE THE APPEAL WITH DILIGENCE. FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THIS HEARING AS ORDERED WILL SUBJECT COUNSEL AND SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES TO THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MONETARY SANCTIONS, FINES, AND/OR PROHIBITION FROM APPEARING BEFORE THIS COURT. SEE GENERAL STATUTES § 51-84 AND PRACTICE BOOK §§ 85-1, 85-2.

(9) AC32434
CHRISTOPHER NORTON
Office of the Chief Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Office of the Chief State’s Attorney
Petitioner-appellant’s court reporter’s written acknowledgment of the transcript order with an estimated delivery date due July 12, 2010.

(10) AC32438
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Office of the Chief State’s Attorney
         v.
HENRY S. PEARLMAN
Henry S. Pearlman, self-represented party
Preliminary statement of issues, designation of contents of record, certificate re: transcript and, if transcript has been ordered, a court reporter’s written acknowledgment of the transcript order with an estimated delivery date, and docketing statement due on or before March 25, 2009.

(11) AC32433
EDGER TATUM
Office of the Chief Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Office of the Chief State’s Attorney
Petitioner-appellant’s court reporter’s written acknowledgment of the transcript order with an estimated delivery date due July 12, 2010.

(12) AC32432
JAVIER SANTANA
Office of the Chief Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Fairfield Post Conviction Remedy Unit
Petitioner-appellant’s court reporter’s written acknowledgment of the transcript order with an estimated delivery date due July 12, 2010.

(13) AC32425
FRED J. ANDERSON
Office of the Chief Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Lawrence J. Tytla, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
Petitioner-appellant’s court reporter’s written acknowledgment of the transcript order with an estimated delivery date due July 12, 2010.

(14) AC32321
TERRANCE CORBETT
W. Theodore Koch, III
Terrance A. Corbett, self represented party
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Fairfield Post Conviction Remedy Unit
Petitioner-appellant’s court reporter’s written acknowledgment of the transcript order with an estimated delivery date due June 17, 2010.

(15) AC32221
FELIPE DASILVA
Diane Polan
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Office of the Chief State’s Attorney
Petitioner-appellant’s amended court reporter’s written acknowledgment of the transcript order with a revised estimated delivery date or certificate of completion due July 9, 2010.

THE FOLLOWING MATTER IS PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR HEARING ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION CALENDAR OR FOR DISPOSITION ON THE 85-1 CALENDAR AT THE APPELLATE COURT, 75 ELM STREET, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 AT 10 A.M.
WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE, AND PURSUANT TO THIS COURT’S SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY, THE MATTER IS SUA SPONTE ORDERED TO BE HEARD BY VIDEO CONFERENCE WITH THE DEFENDANT AT CORRIGAN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AND THE APPELLATE COURT SITTING AT 75 ELM STREET. THIS ARGUMENT WILL TAKE PLACE ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 AT 10:00A.M. SEE PRACTICE BOOK §§ 62-1(B), 60-2, 60-3.

(16) AC30865, AC30866
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Office of the Chief State’s Attorney
         v.
CHARLES FULLENWILEY
Charles Fullenwiley, self-represented party
Defendant-appellant’s brief due on or before July 6, 2010.

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

2:00 P.M.

AC31735    HHD
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mitchell S. Brody, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
ANGEL LUIS SANCHEZ
Katherine C. Essington, Special Public Defender

AC30857    HHD
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Thomas P. Clifford, III, Assistant Attorney General
         v.
AFSCME, COUNCIL 4, LOCAL 391
J. William Gagne, Jr. & Associates, P.C.

AC31098    FST
MYRTLE MEWS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mark Sank & Associates, LLC
Tooher, Wocl & Leydon, LLC
         v.
CHARLES BORDES ET AL.
Bendett & McHugh, P.C.
Charles Bordes, self-represented party

STANDBY CASE

AC30500    FBT
MARGARET CULVER
Nusbaum & Parrino, P.C.
Schoonmaker Legal Group, LLC
         v.
MICHAEL C. CULVER
Piazza, Simmons & Grant, LLC
Horton, Shields & Knox, P.C.
Michael C. Culver, self-represented party

Top


THURSDAY, SEPT. 16, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC31185    UWY
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Kathryn Ward Bare, Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
LATONE JAMES
LaTone James, self-represented party

AC31450    HHD
JAMES F. JORDAN III
Carlo Forzani
         v.
DIANA M. JORDAN
Berry Law, LLC
Mickelson, Jacobs and Bozek, LLC

AC30540    KNL
PACK 2000, INC.
Suisman, Shapiro, Wool, Brennan, Gray & Greenberg, P.C.
         v.
EUGENE C. CUSHMAN
O’Keefe, Phelan & Jackson
Eugene C. Cushman

2:00 P.M.

AC30378    F02B
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Michele C. Lukban, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
RAYMOND BRIDGES
Neal Cone, Assistant Public Defender

AC31008    TSR
STANLEY FOOTE
Wayne Francis, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Raheem L. Mullins, Assistant State’s Attorney

AC30791    NNH
KRISTEN KOVALSICK
Rubin & Eldrich, P.C.
         v.
JEFFREY KOVALSICK
Robert Walsh

STANDBY CASE

AC31236    NNH
W. JAMES RICE
Law Offices of Leon M. Rosenblatt
         v.
MERIDEN HOUSING AUTHORITY ET AL.
Coles, Baldwin & Kaiser, LLC
Barry T. Pontolillo
Halloran & Sage, LLP

Top


FRIDAY, SEPT. 17, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC30604    DBD
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
James A. Killen, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
HERIBERTO LUIS GUZMAN
Mary Beattie Schairer, Special Public Defender

AC31489    LLI
LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Hunt Leibert Jacobson, P.C.
Andrea Asman
         v.
HANK S. RANDALL ET AL.
Caldwell & Lavery
Purtill, Purtill & Pfeffer, P.C.
Robert J. Uskevich
David S. Miles
Joseph Peter Latino
Levine & Glynn
Cramer & Anderson
Melanie Lay, self-represented party
Committee: Bennett & Walsh

AC30600    TTD
EQUITY ONE, INC.
Bendett & McHugh, P.C.
         v.
THOMAS J. SHIVERS
Guest & Associates
Committee: Kenneth Morey, Jr.

2:00 P.M.

AC31710    FBT     MARKED OVER
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Fairfield Post Conviction Remedy Unit
         v.
EMANUEL LOVELL WEBB
Kent Drager, Senior Assistant Public Defender

AC31458    MMX     Originally scheduled 09/02, Rescheduled to 9/10, Marked Over   
MICHAEL URSINI

Law Office of Robert A. Ziegler
         v.
JAMES BARNETT ET AL.

Burdick & Piombino

AC31487    HHB
SHARON LEE ALBUQUERQUE
Law Offices of Charles D. Houlihan, Jr.
         v.
CT STATE EMPLOYEE’S RETIREMENT COMMISSION
Thomas P. Clifford, III, Assistant Attorney General

AC31499    NNH
VICTOR ANATRA ET AL.
Benson A. Snaider, P.C.
         v.
MADISION ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Murtha Cullina LLP

STANDBY CASE

AC30913    FBT     MARKED OVER
CRAIG E. TUCKMAN
The Von Kohorn Law Firm, LLC
Horton, Shields & Knox, P.C.
         v.
KAREN R. TUCKMAN
Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss & Mulcahey, P.C.
Counsel for Minor Child: Not Appointed
Guardian Ad Litem: Bonnie Amendola
Counsel for Guardian Ad Litem: Not Appointed

Top


MONDAY, SEPT. 20, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC31139    TSR
RICARDO EVANS
Christopher Duby, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Rocco A. Chiarenza, Special Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney

AC30776    H12M
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Timothy F. Costello, Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
DONESQUE CHARLES REYNOLDS
Glenn W. Falk, Special Public Defender

AC31413    FST
STEPHEN SHELTON ET AL.
Harlow, Adams & Friedman, P.C.
         v.
FEMI OLOWOSOYO ET AL.
O’Rourke & Associates, LLC

2:00 P.M.

AC31006    K10K
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
DAVID GUZMAN-TORRES
Michael R. Hasse & Associates
Michael R. Hasse, Special Public Defender

AC31456    HHD
RICHARD A. DANZIG, TRUSTEE
Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante, P.C.
         v.
PDPA, INC., ET AL.
Patricia Dadi, self-represented party
Ahmed A. Dadi, self-represented party
Kevin Mason
Law Offices of Steven M. Basche, LLC
Mark S. Rosenblit
Law Office of Robert H. Weinstein
Robert B. McKay, self-represented party
Committee: Charles C. Greenwald

AC31457    HHD
RICHARD A. DANZIG, TRUSTEE
Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante, P.C.
         v.
PDPA, INC., ET AL.
Patricia Dadi, self-represented party
Ahmed A. Dadi, self-represented party
Kevin Mason
Law Offices of Steven M. Basche, LLC
Mark S. Rosenblit
Law Office of Robert H. Weinstein
Robert B. McKay, self-represented party
Committee: Charles C. Greenwald

STANDBY CASE

AC30938    NNI
PETER F. CORRIVEAU
Peter F. Corriveau, self-represented party
Jacobs & Jacobs, P.C.
         v.
ANDREA H. CORRIVEAU
Serrano & Serrano, LLC

Top


TUESDAY, SEPT. 21, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC29848    HHD
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Denise B. Smoker, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
SHAWN JORDAN
Mary Anne Royle, Special Public Defender

AC31293    MMX     WITHDRAWN
LAURE BARTOLOTTA
Barber & Roberts LLC
         v.
MICHAEL J. BARTOLOTTA
Michael J. Bartolotta, self-represented party

AC31513    WWM     RESCHEDULED FROM STANDBY
STEVEN R. TREVORROW
Lucas & Wickless, P.C.
         v.
DIANE D. MARCUCCIO
Kaplan & Brennan, LLP

AC31571    MMX
JENNIFER JAMES
The Gallagher Law Firm
         v.
THE VALLEY SHORE YMCA, INC.
Halloran & Sage, LLP

2:00 P.M.

AC30289    TTD
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Timothy J. Sugrue, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
ORAL H.
Tindall, Holmes & Kestenband, LLC

AC31126    TSR
GORDON JONES
Glen R. Whitehead, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
John A. East III, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney

AC31367    UWY
NANCY GRISWOLD
Moynahan & Minnella
         v.
JEFFREY STERN, M.D.
Cooney, Scully & Dowling

Top


WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 22, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC31549    HHB     MARKED OVER
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Harry D. Weller, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
KRISTA M. LAFOUNTAIN
Kent Drager, Senior Assistant Public Defender

AC31447    HHD     RESCHEDULED FROM STANDBY
WALPOLE WOODWORKERS INC.
Brent Stratton
         v.
SID MANNING A/K/A SIDNEY F. MANNING
Green Law, P.C.

AC31879    H12
IN RE: JOSE B.
Center for Children’s Advocacy
Mary Anne Mulholland, Assistant Attorney General
Susan T. Pearlman, Assistant Attorney General

AC32132    CPM
IN RE: JESSICA M.
Maryann Z. Mulholland, Assistant Attorney General
Valeria L. Caldwell-Gaines
For Petitioner: Center for Children’s Advocacy, Inc.
Guardian Ad Litem: Not appointed
Counsel for the Guardian Ad Litem: Not appointed

2:00 P.M.

AC30786    TSR
SHAWN CROCKER
Mark M. Rembish, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
James M. Ralls, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney

AC31852 / AC31853    KNL
RICHARD SHENKMAN-TYLER
Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante, P.C.
Richard Shenkman-Tyler, self-represented party
         v.
CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL.
Mulvey, Oliver, Gould & Crotta
Kenny, Brimmer & Mahoney, LLC
Nancy Tyler

AC31449    HHB
LANDMARK INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC
Carmody & Torrance, LLC
         v.
CHUNG FAMILY REALTY PARTNERSHIP, LLC
Boscarino, Grasso & Twachtman, LLP
Barry, Harvey & Later, P.C.

Top


THURSDAY, SEPT. 23, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC30767    TSR
LUIS FERNANDEZ
Luis Fernandez, self-represented party
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
James A. Killen, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney

AC30464    TSR
JOHN TAYLOR
Lauren Weisfeld, Senior Assistant Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
James M. Ralls, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney

AC31471    HHD
ROCKVILLE BANK
Krasow, Garlick & Hadley, LLC
         v.
VICTORY OUTREACH MINISTRIES, INC.
Glenn T. Terk
Committee: Thomas B. Kane

2:00 P.M.

AC30386    TSR
WENDELL HASAN
Law Office of Michael D. Day, LLC, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Rita M. Shair, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney

AC30487    S20N
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Kathryn Ward Bare, Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
PAUL MONAHAN
Kirstin Coffin, Special Public Defender

AC30982    FBT
WATERVIEW SITE SERVICES, INC.
Lampert, Williams & Toohey
         v.
PAY DAY, INC.
Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C.

STANDBY CASE

AC31687    FST
ALBERT BACHER
Albert Bacher, self-represented party
         v.
MARLENE MARCUS-BACHER
Theodore L. Freedman

Top


FRIDAY, SEPT. 24, 2010

THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE ASSIGNED FOR “FULL HEARING”

10:00 A.M.

AC30824    NNH
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Michele C. Lukban, Senior Assistant State’s Attorney
         v.
JOSEPH MONTANEZ
Joseph Montanez, self-represented party

AC30634    TSR
DARRELL ATKINSON
Edward G. McAnaney, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Richard K. Greenalch, Special Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney

AC30608    FST
LEYLA MIRJAVADI ET AL.
Tooher Wocl & Leydon, LLC
         v.
ANTHONY VAKILZADEH ET AL.
Pedersen & Stewart, LLC

2:00 P.M.

AC30754    TSR
TIMOTHY PETTY
Elizabeth Knight Adams, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Sarah Hanna, Assistant State’s Attorney

AC31361    NNI
DEBRA L. SZYMASZEK
Forbes & Maluszewski, LLC
         v.
MICHAEL SZYMASZEK
Barry T. Pontolillo

AC31132    TSR
TERANCE ELSEY
Jodi Zils Gagne, Special Public Defender
         v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Tamara A. Grosso, Special Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney

STANDBY CASE

AC30916    XBR
BREWSTER PARK LLC
Goldstein & Peck, P.C.
         v.
FRED BERGER
Fred Berger, self-represented party
Matthew G. Berger, LLC


Top

Counsel must identify themselves to the Clerk in Court not later than 15 minutes before the scheduled time of argument.

MICHÈLE T. ANGERS Chief Clerk


 

To help illustrate the terms and concepts you will often encounter in discussions of the Supreme Court, we have followed an imaginary Supreme Court case through the judicial process. 

Suppose that the plaintiff (Mr. Lyon) is suing the defendant (his employer, the state-run Animal House Zoo). Mr. Lyon, who is white, scored higher than Mr. Behr, who is black, on an exam that qualifies employees for promotions. When the exam was scored, however, the zoo threw out the results because it worried that promoting a white candidate over a black candidate would leave it vulnerable to allegations that it had violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in employment. Mr. Lyon sued the Animal House Zoo, arguing that by throwing out the results of the exam, the zoo violated under his rights under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (The Supreme Court addressed a case with similar facts in 2009 when it decided Ricci v. DeStefano.)

Here, we’ll look at the life of our hypothetical case, Lyon v. Animal House Zoo, focusing on proceedings in the Supreme Court.

Lower courts

Mr. Lyon is suing his employer, the Animal House Zoo, because he believes that the zoo violated his rights under the Civil Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution. He begins his lawsuit by filing it in the federal district court, the trial court responsible for considering federal cases in the area where he lives and works. After hearing arguments and receiving evidence from both Mr. Lyon and the zoo, the district court decides that the zoo did not violate Mr. Lyon’s rights.

Unhappy with the trial court’s decision, Mr. Lyon appeals it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, one of 13 federal appellate courts that review appeals from federal district courts. A panel of three randomly assigned judges reviews the case and affirms the district court’s ruling that the zoo cannot be held liable for its actions, because by throwing out the exam results, it had simply been trying to fulfill its obligation not to discriminate under the Civil Rights Act.

At this point, Mr. Lyon has to choose between petitioning the Supreme Court for review of the 2nd Circuit’s decision or seeking rehearing by the three judges or by all the judges on the 2nd Circuit.  Mr. Lyon chooses to ask for rehearing by all the 2nd Circuit judges, known as en banc review, but the court denies his request.

Petition for a writ of certiorari

From the day the 2nd Circuit denies his petition for rehearing en banc, Mr. Lyon has 90 days to file a petition for a writ of certiorari (often called a cert petition), which is a brief asking the Supreme Court to hear his case. (If Mr. Lyon had won in the lower courts, the zoo could have filed a cert petition.) In most circumstances, the Supreme Court has discretion whether or not to grant review of a particular case. Of the 7,000 to 8,000 cert petitions filed each term, the court grants certiorari and hears oral argument in only about 80. Granting a cert petition requires the votes of four justices.

Mr. Lyon can request that the time for filing his cert petition be extended for up to 60 days. At least 10 days before the due date (absent extraordinary circumstances), he can file a motion requesting more time. That request would go to the circuit justice, the member of the Supreme Court responsible for the 2nd Circuit, currently Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The justices vary in their willingness to grant extension requests.

In his cert petition, Mr. Lyon sets out the facts, the history of the case and the reasons why the Supreme Court should review the 2nd Circuit’s ruling. He tells the court that it should grant review not only because the 2nd Circuit’s opinion is wrong but also because, by doing so, the court can clarify ambiguities in both the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution. (In addition to focusing directly on the legal questions at issue in the case, cert petitions often point to disagreements among the federal courts of appeals about those issues and ask the Supreme Court to resolve those disputes by setting a precedent that the lower courts must follow.)

Once Mr. Lyon’s cert petition is filed, the zoo has three options: It can acquiesce, which means that it can agree with Lyon that the court should grant certiorari (opt to hear the case); it can waive its right to file a response to the cert petition (although the justices, after reading the petition, could still ask the zoo for its response); or it can file a brief in opposition (BIO). The zoo chooses the third option; once the cert petition is placed on the Supreme Court’s docket, the zoo has 30 days to file its BIO.

That deadline can be extended as well by making a request to the clerk’s office. One request will be granted as a matter of right. Later requests generally require the petitioner’s permission. There is no limit on the number of extensions. Because it agrees with the 2nd Circuit’s decision and wants that ruling to prevail, the zoo argues in its BIO that the court should deny Mr. Lyon’s cert petition and choose not to hear the case.

After the BIO has been filed, Mr. Lyon can file a reply brief, rebutting the points made by the zoo in the BIO and reiterating the arguments made in his cert petition. Unlike the cert petition and the BIO, which must be filed with the court under strict deadlines, the exact timing of the reply brief varies. A general rule of thumb, though, is that a reply brief should be filed approximately 10 days after filing of the BIO.

Before the court decides whether to hear Mr. Lyon’s petition, outside groups with an interest in the outcome of the case can file briefs telling the court why it should grant certiorari. These groups are known as amici curiae, which is Latin for “friends of the court”; the briefs they file are called amicus briefs. At the certiorari stage, when the court is deciding whether to hear a case, amicus briefs are normally only filed by those who agree with the petitioner that the court should review the case.

Once all of the cert stage briefs — the cert petition, the BIO (if any), the reply brief (if any) and the amicus briefs (if any) — are filed, they are distributed to the justices’ chambers. Seven of the current justices participate in the cert pool, which is a labor-saving device in which a cert petition is first reviewed by one law clerk in one of the seven chambers. That clerk prepares a memorandum about the case that includes an initial recommendation as to whether the court should review the case; the memorandum is circulated to all seven chambers, where it is reviewed by the clerks and possibly the justices there. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch do not participate in the cert pool. Instead, their law clerks review the incoming cert petitions on their own and make recommendations directly to their respective justices.

Based on these reviews, the justices decide to add Lyon v. Animal House Zoo to the discuss list, a short list of cases they plan to talk about at their next private meeting, or conference. (If no justice had asked to add Lyon to the discuss list, it would have been put on the “dead list,” and certiorari would automatically have been denied without the justices having ever discussed the case or voted on it.) At least four justices vote to grant review in Lyon, and the court announces this decision as part of an order list, which will generally be released on the Monday morning after the conference.

Merits stage

Once the court has accepted the case, the parties are required to file a new set of briefs. Unlike the cert stage briefs, which focused on whether the court should review the case, the briefs on the merits allow each party to explain why he or she should win the case. Once certiorari is granted, the petitioner generally has 45 days to file his opening brief. (This time frame is typical, but can vary in particularly time-sensitive cases; when the court was considering the dispute between presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore, for example, it instructed the parties to file their merits briefs over the course of a single weekend. Also, depending on the court’s schedule, the parties to a merits case may be able to agree on a briefing arrangement that provides them with more time that the rules specify.) Mr. Lyon has a maximum of 50 pages in which to make his argument, and he uses that space to explain to the court why he thinks the Animal House Zoo violated his rights when it threw out the results of the promotional exam.

Even though the Supreme Court will be able to review the entire record in the case, Mr. Lyon and the zoo agree that it will be helpful for the justices to have ready access to the exam results, so they decide to file a joint appendix including this material. (If Mr. Lyon and the zoo had agreed that no joint appendix was needed, they could have filed a motion asking the court for permission not to prepare one.) Whoever loses the case will be required to pay for the printing of the joint appendix, so both Mr. Lyon and the zoo have an interest in keeping it as short as possible. The joint appendix is filed at the same time as Mr. Lyon’s merits brief.

A group not involved in Lyon v. Animal House Zoo, the United Coalition of Zoo Workers, learns about the case and decides that a Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Lyon’s favor will benefit its own mission. Therefore, the group files an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to accept Mr. Lyon’s arguments; furthermore, it brings up some points that Mr. Lyon didn’t address in his brief, and that it thinks will be helpful in persuading the justices to rule in his favor. Because it supports the position of the petitioner, the coalition’s amicus brief is due one week after Mr. Lyon’s merits brief is filed. A would-be amicus must normally ask both sides for permission to file, but the court will almost always allow the filing of a timely amicus brief even if one side or another refuses to consent.

Thirty-five days after Mr. Lyon files his merits brief (absent an extension), the zoo’s brief, known as the respondent’s brief,is due. It is subject to the same 50-page limit as Mr. Lyon’s opening brief; the zoo uses the space to argue that, when it threw out the test results, it was only trying to avoid discriminating against any of its employees. The zoo argues that the 2nd Circuit’s interpretation of the case was correct, and it urges the Supreme Court to affirm, or leave in place, that ruling.

The U.S. government learns about Lyon v. Animal House Zoo, and it worries that a Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Lyon’s favor would restrict its own ability to promote its employees as it sees fit. Therefore, the government decides to file an amicus brief in support of the zoo. The U.S. solicitor general, who acts as the government’s lawyer in Supreme Court cases, files the amicus brief; her brief is due one week after the zoo’s brief is filed. The United States is one of a limited number of parties that do not have to ask for permission to file an amicus brief. The solicitor general also files a motion for divided argument, asking the Supreme Court to allot some time for her to speak as an amicus when the case is argued.

Once Mr. Lyon has filed his merits brief and the zoo has responded, Mr. Lyon has an opportunity to file a reply brief, which is due approximately 30 days after the respondent’s brief on the merits (but at least seven days before the case is argued). He uses this brief to rebut the arguments made in the respondent’s brief and the United States’ amicus brief and to reiterate the points he made in his original merits brief.

Oral argument

The Supreme Court normally hears oral arguments between October and April, scheduling them into monthly two-week sittings during which the court hears two (although sometimes one or three) arguments per day on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Generally, the court allots one hour of argument time for each case, with each party speaking for 30 minutes.

Although amici often ask the court to grant divided argument — to let them use part of a party’s allotted half-hour to make their own points — these requests are rarely granted when they come from private groups. However, in Lyon v. Animal House Zoo, the court grants (as it often does) the solicitor general’s request for divided argument. Because the solicitor general will be arguing for the United States in support of the respondent, she (or another lawyer from her office) will be using 10 minutes of the half hour allotted to the zoo.

During the oral argument, the justices have the opportunity to ask the attorneys to clarify or elaborate on any questions that have arisen from the briefs. Frequently, much of the oral argument is devoted to answering these questions. Because Mr. Lyon is the petitioner, his attorney argues first. Mr. Lyon’s attorney speaks for 25 of the 30 minutes allotted to him, choosing to reserve the last five minutes for rebuttal. As soon as he finishes speaking, the attorney for the zoo has 20 minutes to respond. Following the zoo’s attorney, an attorney from the office of the solicitor general argues for 10 minutes on behalf of the United States, and then Mr. Lyon’s attorney uses his five remaining minutes to deliver a rebuttal.

Decision

Later that week, the justices hold a private conference during which they vote on how to decide the case. The senior justice in the majority (that is, either the Chief Justice or, if he is not in the majority, the justice who has been on the court the longest) decides who will write the majority opinion; if there is a dissent — a view held by a minority of justices that a different decision should have been reached — then the senior dissenting justice assigns one of the dissenting justices to write the dissenting opinion. If a justice agrees with the outcome of a case but not the reasoning behind it, he or she may write a concurring opinion, in which other justices may join. Justices may also write separate dissents. In the event of a tie vote — for example, if there is a vacancy on the court or if one of the justices has recused himself or herself from the case — the decision of the lower court remains undisturbed.

The assigned justices then draft and circulate opinions outlining their reasoning in reaching their decision. The time it takes to finalize an opinion depends on several factors, including how divided the justices are, which justice is writing the opinion, and the court’s schedule. Typically, all cases are decided by the time the court recesses for the summer at the end of June or the beginning of July.

The court announces its decision in Lyon v. Animal House Zoo in open court. Here, the court hands down, or issues, an opinion in which it reverses the 2nd Circuit’s decision, explaining its reasons for ruling that the 2nd Circuit was wrong to decide the case in the zoo’s favor and that it should have ruled in favor of Mr. Lyon instead. (Alternatively, the court could have affirmed the case, ruling that the 2nd Circuit was right and that the zoo should not be held liable, or it could have vacated the 2nd Circuit’s ruling, effectively canceling it, and remanded the case, directing the 2nd Circuit to re-examine it based on theories, evidence or reasoning it had not yet considered.)

Leave a Comment

(0 Comments)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *