Letter from Court to Counsel RE: Notifications from Judge Hammer

Correspondence
June 1, 1995

Cite this item
Letter from Court to Counsel RE: Notifications from Judge Hammer preview

4 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Sheff v. O'Neill Hardbacks. Letter from Court to Counsel RE: Notifications from Judge Hammer, 1995. 86359e07-a246-f011-877a-0022482c18b0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ce6e9eff-5c5a-4adf-8b59-3f230ed6eab6/letter-from-court-to-counsel-re-notifications-from-judge-hammer. Accessed December 04, 2025.

    Copied!

    State of Connecticut ® 

OFFICE FOR APPEALS 

; 231 Capitol Avenue 
Francis J. Drumm, Jr. Drawer Z, Station A Supreme Court 

Chief Clerk Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Appellate Court 

June 1, i1995 

Wesley Horton, Esd. 
Moller, Horton & Shields, P.C. 

90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT. 06105 

Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General 

Bernard F. McGovern, Assistant Attorney General 

Martha Watts Prestley, Assistant Attorney General 

P.O. Boxel20 

Hartford, CT. 06141-0120 

Martha Stone, Esq. 
Philip D. Tegeler, Esdg. 
Conn. Civil Liberties Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT. 06106 

Re: SC 15255 Milo Sheff et al. v. William A. O’Neill et al. 
  

Dear Counsel: 

Judge Hammer has requested that I notify you of the following: 

1. The revised stipulation will, pursuant to the order of 

May 11, 1995, "identify, by appropriate headings, those 
legal claims presented to the court." 

The additional proposed findings of fact as revised will 

utilize the same headings that appear in the revised 

joint stipulation. 

only those facts that are genuinely disputed by the 
parties and which require resolution by the trial court 
in order to properly present their legal claims in this 
appeal shall be included in the respective revised 

proposed findings. 

Counsel’s attention is also directed to the definition of 
a "decision on each of the disputed facts" as including 
under the Court’s order, a "decision in response to a 
claim that the party proposing the fact did not carry the 
party’s burden of persuasion with respect thereto," which 
appears to require that such claims be included in the 
respective requests.  



Please advise me forthwith of the date when the revised 

submissions will be filed. 

Thank you. 

Very truly yours, 

el io! g % Ro << =, Lo 

Michele T. Angers SR 
Deputy Chief Clerk 

John Brittain 
Wilfred Rodriguez 
Marianne Engelman Lado 
Theodore Shaw 
Dennis D. Parker 
Sandra Del Valle 
Christopher A. Hansen 

 



+08/01/9% 12:13 T*203 566 6731 $C/AC CLERK OFC 

State of (Lonnertiont 

\ on 

4 

Rhoien E™ LA 

OFFICE FOR APPEALS 

; 231 Capitol Avenus 

Francis J. Drumm, Jr, Drawer 2, Station A Supreme Court 

Chief Clerk Hartford, Connecticut 08106 Appellate Court 

June 1, 1995 

Waslay Horton, Eaq. 

Moller, Horton & Shields, P.C. 

90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT. 06105 

Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General 

Barnard F. McGovarn, Assistant Attornay General 

Martha Watts Prestley, Assistant Attorney Genaral 

P.O. Box 120 

Hartford, CT. 06141-0120 

Martha Stone, Esq. 
Philip D. Tageler, Esq. 

Copnn. Civil Libertias Union Foundation 

32 Grand Street 
Hartford, CT, 06106 

Re: SC 15255 Milo Sheff et sl. v. William A, O’Neill et al. 
  

Dear Counsel: 

Judge Hammer has requested that I notify you of the following: 

1. The revised stipulation will, pursuant to the order of 

May 11, 1995, “identify, bY appropriate headings, those 

legal claims presented to the court.” 

The additional proposed findings of fact as ravised will 

utilize the same headings that appear in the revised 

4oint stipulation. 

Only those facts that are genuinely disputed hy the 

parties and which require resolution by the trial court 

in order to properly present their legal claims in this 

appeal shall be included in tha raspective revised 

proposad findings. 

counsel’s attention is also directed to the definition of 

a “"dacision on each of the disputed facts! as including 

under the Court’s order, a "decision in response to a 

claim that the party proposing the fact did not carry the 

party’s burden of persuasion with respect thereto," which 

appears to require that auch claims be included in the 

raspactive raguests. 

BCs Xgd BOINOA IP:11 G6 T “ung  



    06/01/85 12:14 “@ 8731 $C/AC CLERK OFC TTR 

Please advise me forthwith of the date when the revised 

supnissions will be filed. 

Thank you. 

Very truly yours, 

Michale T. Angers 

paputy Chief Clerk 
   

ois” 

cc: John Brittain 

wilfred Rodriguez 

Marianne Engelman Lado 

Thaodore Shaw 

pennis D. Parker 

gandra Dal valle 

Christopher A. Hansen 

Bel Xod4 BOINOM P:11 G6 T “unp

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.