From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Charlotte Hungerford Hosp.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Apr 4, 2012
40 A.3d 784 (Conn. 2012)

Opinion

2012-04-4

STATE of Connecticut v. CHARLOTTE HUNGERFORD HOSPITAL.

Stephen V. Manning and Donna R. Zito, in support of the petition. Jane R. Rosenberg and Lynn D. Wittenbrink, assistant attorneys general, in opposition.


Stephen V. Manning and Donna R. Zito, in support of the petition. Jane R. Rosenberg and Lynn D. Wittenbrink, assistant attorneys general, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 133 Conn.App. 479, 36 A.3d 252, is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the subpoena power conferred upon the claims commissioner by General Statutes § 4–151(c) permits him to subpoena documents from a respondent that has not been named as a party to the suit that the claims commissioner has been asked to authorize?”


Summaries of

State v. Charlotte Hungerford Hosp.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Apr 4, 2012
40 A.3d 784 (Conn. 2012)
Case details for

State v. Charlotte Hungerford Hosp.

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Connecticut v. CHARLOTTE HUNGERFORD HOSPITAL.

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Apr 4, 2012

Citations

40 A.3d 784 (Conn. 2012)
304 Conn. 906

Citing Cases

State v. Charlotte Hungerford Hosp.

We subsequently granted the hospital's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following…