ARIEL MINO v. PURE TECHNOLOGIES U.S., INC., etc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that ‘‘[t]he 2012 amendments are significant . . . because they provide tools to effectuate the original purpose of ensuring expedient resolution of habeas cases’’
• ‘‘[t]he 2012 amend- ments are significant . . . because they provide tools to effectuate the original purpose of ensuring expedient resolution of habeas cases’’
• ‘‘[t]his court has construed § 52-265a to allow the Chief Justice to certify an appeal in matters of public importance even if the order challenged is not a final judgment’’
• in context of habeas proceeding, concluding that lack of specific statutory contours as to statutory phrase suggests that legislature intended for court to exercise its discretion
• ‘‘[o]ur conclusion . . . is consistent with the purpose underlying [Public Acts 2012, No. 12-115, § 1 (P.A. 12- 115)]—to screen out meritless and untimely petitions in an expeditious manner’’
• ‘‘[i]n the absence of any language in [§ 52-470 (e

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).