Emerick v. Emerick
| Decision Date | 05 November 1992 |
| Citation | Emerick v. Emerick, 617 A.2d 171, 224 Conn. 915 (Conn. 1992) |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Claudia EMERICK v. Roger EMERICK. |
Roger Emerick, pro se, in support of the petition.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 28 Conn.App. 794, 613 A.2d 1351, is denied.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
43 cases
-
Lynch v. Lynch
...contemnor who might be incarcerated ”; (emphasis added) Emerick v. Emerick, 28 Conn.App. 794, 797, 613 A.2d 1351, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 915, 617 A.2d 171 (1992) ; and the court here expressly stated that it was “going to take the possibility of incarceration off the table because [it did ......
-
Giordano v. Giordano
...the mere lapse of time does not constitute laches. Emerick v. Emerick, 28 Conn.App. 794, 804, 613 A.2d 1351, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 915, 617 A.2d 171 (1992). The defendant urges that because the plaintiffs were aware of the alleged acts for eighteen years before they filed their action, "[......
-
Issler v. Issler
...upon which it was based." The defendant cites to Emerick v. Emerick, 28 Conn.App. 794, 805, 613 A.2d 1351, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 915, 617 A.2d 171 (1992), for the proposition that reversal of financial orders, including attorney's fees, is required when this court reverses the trial court......
- State v. Miller
Get Started for Free