STATE v. BACCALA—CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT EVELEIGH, J., with whom ROGERS, C. J., and ESPINOSA, J., join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclu- sion that the speech at issue in the present case did not constitute unprotected fighting words under the first amendment to the United States constitution. In my view, State v. Szymkiewicz, 237 Conn. 613, 678 A.2d 478 (1996), is binding on this court. Indeed, the facts underlying present case, in…
Read the full opinion (source) ↗
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.