From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gleason v. Smolinski

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 25, 2014
312 Conn. 920 (Conn. 2014)

Opinion

2014-06-25

Madeleine GLEASON et al. v. Janice SMOLINSKI et al.


Christopher DeMarco, Steven J. Kelly, pro hac vice, and Anne T. McKenna, pro hac vice, in support of the petition.

The defendants' petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 149 Conn.App. 283, 88 A.3d 589, is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendants' first amendment claim of protected speech failed to satisfy the third prong of the test for review of unpreserved claims set forth in State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989)?

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's determination that the defendants were liable for defamation per se of the named plaintiff?”


Summaries of

Gleason v. Smolinski

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 25, 2014
312 Conn. 920 (Conn. 2014)
Case details for

Gleason v. Smolinski

Case Details

Full title:Madeleine GLEASON et al. v. Janice SMOLINSKI et al.

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Jun 25, 2014

Citations

312 Conn. 920 (Conn. 2014)
94 A.3d 1201

Citing Cases

Gleason v. Smolinski

Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's determination that the defendants were liable for…

Gleason v. Smolinski

"2. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's determination that the defendants were liable…