Schoenhorn v. Moss
Citations
- 347 Conn. 501
Syllabus
The plaintiff attorney sought a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant, the chief court reporter for the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, to produce certain transcripts that were sealed by another court in a marital dissolution action involving different parties. In the dissolution action, the family court had held a hearing concerning child custody, during which it issued an oral order closing the courtroom to the public and sealing the hearing transcripts. Following the dismissal of the disso- lution action, the defendant declined to provide the transcripts of the custody hearing to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff commenced the present 502 AUGUST, 2023 347 Conn. 501 Schoenhorn v. Moss mandamus action against the defendant individually and in her official capacity as chief court reporter, seeking an injunction compelling the defendant, pursuant to statute (§ 51-61 (c)), to produce those transcripts. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and rendered judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Relying on Valvo v. Freedom of Information Commission (294 Conn. 534), in which this court concluded that a trial court presiding over an administrative appeal did not have subject matter jurisdiction to overturn sealing orders issued by another court in an unrelated case involving different parties, the trial court in the present case concluded that the plaintiff's mandamus action constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the family court's sealing order, and, therefore, the action was nonjusticiable because no practical relief was available to the plaintiff. On appeal from the trial court's judgment of dismissal, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court incorrectly had determined that his action was nonjusticiable. Held that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's mandamus action on the ground that it was nonjusticiable, as the trial court could not afford the plaintiff any practical relief: The pl
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court· 1998-03-04· cited 10,096×
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court· 2006-02-22· cited 6,493×
- Baker v. CarrSupreme Court· 1962-03-26· cited 6,173×
- Gonzalez v. ThalerSupreme Court· 2012-01-10· cited 3,668×
- Flast v. CohenSupreme Court· 1968-06-10· cited 3,484×
- Powell v. McCormackSupreme Court· 1969-10-13· cited 3,053×
- Fort Bend County v. DavisSupreme Court· 2019-06-03· cited 277×
- Warshak v. United StatesSixth Circuit· 2008-07-11· cited 177×
- Amodio v. AmodioSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-02-16· cited 137×
- Oryszak v. SullivanD.C. Circuit· 2009-08-14· cited 130×
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. TagerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-07-22· cited 105×
- Conboy v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-07-21· cited 100×
- Rinsky v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.First Circuit· 2019-03-08· cited 87×
- Wilson v. KelleySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-12-08· cited 86×
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of ChicagoSupreme Court· 2017-11-08· cited 83×
- Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. RellSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-03-30· cited 72×
- Connecticut Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. MilanoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1983-12-13· cited 65×
- Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-11-15· cited 64×
- Wade Steven Gardner v. William MutzEleventh Circuit· 2020-06-22· cited 58×
- Meinket v. LevinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-05-01· cited 55×
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.