Gainey v. Comm'r of Corr.

6 Citing cases

  1. Cooke v. Comm'r of Corr.

    194 Conn. App. 807 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 7 times

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gainey v. Commissioner of Correction , 181 Conn. App. 377, 383, 186 A.3d 784 (2018). "The first element in the analysis pertains to the length of the challenged action.... If an action or its effects is not of inherently limited duration, the action can be reviewed the next time it arises, when it will present an ongoing live controversy.

  2. Boria v. Comm'r of Corr.

    186 Conn. App. 332 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding that hearing is not required before habeas petition is dismissed under § 23-29

    This court granted the motion for review but denied the relief requested therein. Although the second petition appears to have significant overlap with the first claim of the underlying petition in the present appeal, the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, did not move for the habeas court to dismiss the claim under the prior pending action doctrine; see Gainey v. Commissioner of Correction , 181 Conn. App. 377, 380 n.5, 186 A.3d 784 (2018) ; or for being an improper successive petition.The other petition was docketed as TSR-CV-16-4008315-S (third petition), and it is that petition that underlies the present appeal.

  3. Stafford v. Comm'r of Corr.

    207 Conn. App. 85 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gainey v. Commissioner of Correction , 181 Conn. App. 377, 383, 186 A.3d 784 (2018). In his habeas petition, the petitioner specified that the form of relief he was requesting was (1) a declaration by the court that he is eligible for parole, (2) an order that the respondent classify him as eligible for parole, and (3) that the board and the department classify him as eligible for parole and accord him consideration in accordance with the criteria set forth in § 54-125.

  4. State v. Yoon Chul Shin

    193 Conn. App. 348 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 6 times

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gainey v. Commissioner of Correction , 181 Conn. App. 377, 383–84, 186 A.3d 784 (2018).Under the unique circumstances of the defendant's case, we are not persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that the question presented in the pending case will arise again in the future, or that it will affect either the same complaining party or a reasonably identifiable group for whom that party can be said to act as surrogate.

  5. Baltas v. Commissioner of Correction

    CV174008753S (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 22, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original.) Gainey v. Commissioner of Correction, 181 Conn.App. 377, 383, 186 A.3d 784 (2018). In oral argument on the motion to dismiss, the respondent raised the issue of the petitioner’s current classification and his current locus of custody.

  6. Martin v. Commissioner of Correction

    CV184009750S (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 4, 2019)

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original.) Gaines v. Commissioner of Correction, 181 Conn.App. 377, 383, 186 A.3d 784 (2018). The petitioner has been released from custody because his sentence has expired.