From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Warden

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Tolland at Somers
Jan 18, 2011
2011 Ct. Sup. 2947 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011)

Opinion

No. CV09-4003171

January 18, 2011


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION


The petitioner has filed a notice, in accordance with Practice Book § 64-1(b), indicating that this court has not filed a memorandum of decision. See Practice Book § 64-1(a). The following constitutes the court's memorandum of decision.

The respondent's motion for summary judgment was granted on August 2, 2010, on the grounds asserted in the respondent's memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment. The habeas corpus petition presented a purely legal determination, as there were no facts reasonably in dispute. Neither party requested oral argument in accordance with Practice Book § 11-18(a).

The court notes as a postscript that on September 21, 2010, the Appellate Court released its decision in Figueroa v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn.App. 862, 3 A.3d 202 (2010), which addressed the identical claim the petitioner raised in the instant petition (i.e., due process violation premised on lack of enabling language in public act). Figueroa both encapsulates and underscores this court's grounds for granting summary judgment.

(S. T. Fuger, Jr., J.)


Summaries of

Smith v. Warden

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Tolland at Somers
Jan 18, 2011
2011 Ct. Sup. 2947 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011)
Case details for

Smith v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM SMITH, INMATE #235944 v. WARDEN

Court:Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Tolland at Somers

Date published: Jan 18, 2011

Citations

2011 Ct. Sup. 2947 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011)