Skip to main content

Alliance Partners, Inc. v. Voltarc Technologies, Inc.

Citations

  • 263 Conn. 204
  • 820 A.2d 224
  • 2003 Conn. LEXIS 147
  • 2003 WL 1873171

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • \[t]he rules of practice vest broad authority in the Appellate Court for the management of its docket\ [internal quotation marks omitted]
  • Appellate Court has broad authority to manage docket, including discretion to decline review of untimely claims
  • ‘‘[w]e cannot conclude on the facts of this case that the Appellate Court abused its discretion in determining that the plaintiff’s explana- tion for its late appeal did not constitute good cause’’
  • Appellate Court has discretion to determine whether party has established good cause to file late appeal under Practice Book (2003) § 60-2 (6) (now § 60- 2 (5)); Ramos v. Commissioner of Correction, 248 Conn. 52, 59, 61, 727 A.2d 213 (1999

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Borden

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Alliance Partners, Inc. v. Voltarc Technologies, Inc.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.