This is the official website of the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch. Of the case is determined by the status of the case file. File is sealed. You asked for more information about the docket of “super-secret” cases in Connecticut. Court proceedings or files to be sealed. Statutory prohibitions. Statutorily Sealed Case File In Connecticut Movie. Young men with mental illness are a common denominator but so, inescapably, are guns. The NRA is fond of saying.

United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. THE HARTFORD COURANT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, American Lawyer Media, Inc. D/b/a The Connecticut Law Tribune, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PELLEGRINO, Chief Court Administrator and William J. Sullivan, Chief Justice, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 03-9141. Decided: June 08, 2004 Before: MESKILL, KATZMANN, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.Ralph G. Elliot, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants The Hartford Courant Company and American Lawyer Media, Inc. D/b/a/ The Connecticut Law Tribune. Maureen Danehy Cox, Carmody & Torrance LLP, Waterbury, CT, for Defendants-Appellees Joseph H. Pellegrino and William J. Schulz, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, L.L.P., New York, NY, for amici curiae The Associated Press, The Connecticut Society of Professional Journalists, The Day Publishing Company, the Hearst Corporation, the Record-Journal Publishing Company, NYP Holdings, Inc., The New York Times Company, and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (Jay Ward Brown, Alia L.

Smith, David McCraw, John K. Keitt, Jr., Jan F.

Dell Oem Windows 7 To Windows 10. Constantine, Lucy A. Quality Unit Patch 2005 Dodge. Daglish, of counsel).

This case calls upon us to decide whether the public and press have a qualified First Amendment right to inspect docket sheets and, if so, the appropriate remedy for its violation by state courts. The Hartford Courant and The Connecticut Law Tribune appeal from the dismissal of their demand for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Gerard L. Goettel, District Judge). The plaintiffs argued below that the longstanding Connecticut state court practice of sealing certain docket sheets, as well as entire case files, violated their right of access to judicial proceedings and documents established under the First Amendment. While refraining from deciding the merits of the newspapers' claim, the district court instead dismissed the case on the ground that the court administrators sued did not have the authority to provide the relief requested, that of producing the docket sheets, because doing so would contravene prior court orders.

On appeal, as they did below, the plaintiffs assert that such orders may not exist. We determine that the press and public possess a qualified First Amendment right of access to docket sheets. We also hold that, if the materials at issue were sealed administratively, the named defendants have the authority to grant access. As we are unable to discern, on the face of the minimal record before us, whether the materials were sealed in accordance with judicial orders or statutes, we vacate the judgment dismissing the action and remand the matter to the district court to ascertain, at the very least, an answer to this question.

Finally, after reviewing the abstention doctrines that the defendants have raised, we hold that none applies in this case. I. Background Between 2002 and 2003, the newspaper plaintiffs learned that, over the prior 38 years, the Connecticut state court system had adjudicated what appeared to be thousands of cases where sealing procedures prohibited court personnel from allowing the public to access the files in those proceedings and, in certain comparatively rare instances, from acknowledging the existence of these cases altogether.