Skip to main content
· 7/2/2021

Thornton v. Jacobs

Citations

  • 339 Conn. 495

Syllabus

The plaintiffs served a subpoena on the defendant L in Connecticut to depose her in connection with an action the plaintiffs were litigating in Florida against a company owned by L, after a Florida court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to subpoena L, who resided primarily in Connecticut. L filed a motion to quash the Connecticut subpoena, which the trial court 14 See Jefferson Garden Associates v. Greene, supra, 202 Conn. 140 (declin- ing to review defendant's claim that certain documents were inadmissible under § 52-180 because they were prepared for use in litigation when defen- dant had objected to admission of documents only on ground that witness lacked competency to offer documents into evidence). 496 NOVEMBER, 2021 339 Conn. 495 Thornton v. Jacobs denied, and L appealed to the Appellate Court. The plaintiffs then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which L opposed, and the Appellate Court dismissed L's appeal as frivolous. After the Appellate Court's dismissal of L's appeal but before this court granted L's petition for certification to appeal, the plaintiffs served L with a subpoena in Florida while L was visiting that state and withdrew, without prejudice, the Connecticut subpoena. On appeal from the Appellate Court's dismissal of L's appeal, held that, because the plaintiffs' withdrawal of their Con- necticut subpoena rendered L's appeal to this court moot, that appeal was dismissed, and, because L was thereby prevented from challenging, before this court, the Appellate Court's dismissal of her appeal as frivo- lous, the Appellate Court's judgment was vacated; the plaintiffs, having unilaterally withdrawn the Connecticut subpoena, prevented L, through no fault of her own, from challenging the Appellate Court's adverse determination, and the plaintiffs, after having received favorable rulings from the Appellate Court and the trial court, should not have been able to moot L's appeal to this court to prevent the possibility of an unfavorable decision. Arg

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.