Greenwich Hospital v. Gavin (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** GREENWICH HOSPITAL v. GAVIN CONCURRENCE ZARELLA, J., concurring. I agree with the majority s conclusion in this case but write separately to reaffirm my continuing belief in the plain meaning rule as expressed in my dissenting opinion in State v. Courchesne, 262 Conn. 537, 597, 618 19, 816 A.2d 562 (2003) (Zarella, J., dissenting). I also agree with the majority s decision not to address the plaintiff s claim that the retroactive application of Public Acts 2000, No. 00-174, violated its federal due process rights because that claim was inadequately briefed. I would note, however, that, even if we were to reach the plaintiff s due process claim, the result in this case would be the same in light of United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26, 31, 35, 114 S. Ct. 2018, 129 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1994), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the retroactive application of curative federal tax legislation did not violate a taxpayer s fifth amendment due process rights.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
