Supreme Court of Connecticut· 7/17/1979
Vogel v. Vogel
Citations
- 178 Conn. 358
- 422 A.2d 271
- 1979 Conn. LEXIS 860
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting plaintiff’s challenge to nineteen year old mari- tal dissolution judgment as impermissible collateral attack
- Supreme Court declined to consider claim of lack of jurisdiction made twenty years after initial judgment rendered
- plaintiff’s attack, during 1978 contempt hearing, on subject matter jurisdiction of court to render 1959 judgment in same case, was impermissible collateral attack on 1959 judg- ment
- ‘‘A court does not truly lack subject matter jurisdiction if it has competence to enter- tain the action before it. . . . Lesser irregularities do not make a final judgment void.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
- plaintiff sought to attack nineteen year old marital dissolution judgment
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Cotter, Loiselle, Bogdanski, Longo, Peters
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Fairfield Lease Corp. v. Romano's Auto ServiceConnecticut Appellate Court· 1985-07-16· cited 143×
- City of Waterbury v. Town of WashingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-07-02· cited 132×
- Upjohn Co. v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-11-24· cited 85×
- Daley v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-05-08· cited 81×
- Venuti v. VenutiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1981-08-04· cited 79×
- Connecticut Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. MilanoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1983-12-13· cited 65×
- Meinket v. LevinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-05-01· cited 55×
- Gangemi v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-01-02· cited 35×
- Harker v. City of HolyokeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1983-12-12· cited 32×
- Bleidner v. SearlesConnecticut Appellate Court· 1989-07-11· cited 23×
- People in Interest of EEA v. JMColorado Court of Appeals· 1993-07-06· cited 20×
- URBAN REDEV. COM'N OF STAMFORD v. KatsetosConnecticut Appellate Court· 2004-11-30· cited 19×
- Perkins v. PerkinsConnecticut Appellate Court· 1985-02-26· cited 19×
- Gennarini Construction Co. v. Messina Painting & Decorating Co.Connecticut Appellate Court· 1988-08-16· cited 19×
- Morris v. IrwinConnecticut Appellate Court· 1985-07-02· cited 17×
- Daly v. DalyConnecticut Appellate Court· 1989-07-11· cited 16×
- City of Bridgeport v. DebekConnecticut Appellate Court· 1990-08-07· cited 10×
- Bank of New York Mellon v. TopeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-12-20· cited 10×
- Peck v. Statewide Grievance CommitteeConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-06-16· cited 9×
- Hebrand v. HebrandConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-10-25· cited 7×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.