Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998

Sheehan v. Balasic

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided June 23, 1998

245 Conn. 148; 710 A.2d 770; 1998 Conn. LEXIS 210

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Monette v. Monette (Conn. App. Ct. 2007)
Burke v. Burke (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)
Weinstein v. Weinstein (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)
O'Neill v. O'Neill (Conn. App. Ct. 2021)
Robaczynski v. Robaczynski (Conn. App. Ct. 2014)
Pite v. Pite (Conn. App. Ct. 2012)
Sutherland v. Sutherland (Conn. App. Ct. 2008)
Williams v. Williams (Conn. 2005)
Wichman v. Wichman (Conn. App. Ct. 1998)
Sosin v. Sosin (Conn. 2011)
Kiszka v. Kiszka, No. Fa95-0710091 (Nov. 3, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.1

The appeal is dismissed.

We granted the defendant’s petition for certification limited to the following issue: “Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the twenty-four month term of the unallocated alimony and support provision was not modifiable?” Sheehan v. Balasic, 243 Conn. 945, 704 A.2d 798 (1997).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.