Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Citation
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Parent Document
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2007-09-11
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
Full Text
1,476 charsThe following additional facts and procedural history are necessary to our disposition of this issue. Subsequent to the court’s award of attorney’s fees, the court granted an application for a postjudgment remedy, requiring the defendant’s disclosure of assets. The defendant responded by submitting an affidavit from Murray on September 13, 2006, in which she stated that the defendant had no assets “[a]t this time.” The plaintiffs then served the defendant’s president, Murray, and its secretary, Edward Kanowitz, with subpoenas to appear at a deposition. Neither Murray nor Kanowitz appeared at the deposition. On November 15, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a “motion to compel compliance with subpoena and sanctions.” On January 8, 2007, the court granted the motion and ordered the defendant to comply with the subpoenas. The court further issued an order sanctioning the defendant in the amount of $164.57. On January 11, 2007, the defendant, prior to appearing at the deposition or being held in contempt of the court’s order, filed a supplemental appeal, challenging the compliance and sanction orders. This court then alerted the parties by letter dated May 18, 2007, to “be prepared to address at oral argument any questions the court may have as to why [the defendant’s supplemental] appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final judgment on the ground that ... at the time the [supplemental] appeal was filed, the defendant had not been held in contempt . . . .”