Donshik v Donshik Officially Released Date: Establishes Post-Judgment Deadlines

• The "officially released" date is prominently displayed near the beginning of a judicial opinion.
• This date signifies either the opinion's publication in the Connecticut Law Journal or its release as a slip opinion.
• It serves as the operative date for the commencement of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification.
• All judicial opinions, even after their initial release, are subject to modification and technical correction.

It is designated as the operative date for initiating all time periods relevant to post-judgment legal actions.

The "officially released" date holds a pivotal position in the lifecycle of a judicial opinion, consistently appearing near the document's commencement. This specific date serves as a formal declaration of when a court's decision becomes publicly accessible. It signifies one of two critical events: either the opinion's official publication within the Connecticut Law Journal, or its initial release as a slip opinion. This dual function underscores the structured process through which judicial pronouncements transition from internal deliberation to public record.

For legal practitioners and the public alike, recognizing this date is fundamental. Its prominent placement at the beginning of the opinion is not merely a formatting convention but a clear indicator of its foundational importance. It marks the moment a judgment formally enters the public domain, establishing a clear reference point for its dissemination and subsequent legal impact.

Beyond its function as a publication marker, the "officially released" date, as exemplified in cases such as *Donshik v. Donshik*, carries profound procedural weight. It is designated as the operative date for initiating all time periods relevant to post-judgment legal actions. This means that for any litigant or attorney, this specific date triggers the commencement of strict deadlines for critical procedural steps.

Specifically, this date dictates when the clock begins for the filing of postopinion motions. These motions, often seeking reconsideration or clarification of a ruling, are time-sensitive and must adhere to precise schedules. Similarly, the "officially released" date governs the initiation of timeframes for petitions for certification, which are formal requests for a higher court to review a decision. The clarity provided by this single, unambiguous date is essential for maintaining procedural integrity and ensuring that all parties operate within a standardized and predictable legal framework.

While the "officially released" date establishes a crucial starting point for legal timelines, it is equally important to understand that it does not necessarily denote the absolute finality of an opinion's content. A significant aspect of the judicial process is the explicit understanding that all opinions, even after their initial public release, remain subject to potential modification. This provision allows for necessary refinements to the text.

Furthermore, opinions are also subject to technical correction. This acknowledges that clerical errors, grammatical inconsistencies, or minor factual inaccuracies can occur and require rectification before an opinion is fully finalized for permanent publication. Consequently, the version of an opinion initially released, particularly in its slip opinion form, may not be the ultimate, definitive text. Legal professionals must therefore remain cognizant of this dynamic, recognizing that while the operative date for procedural deadlines is fixed, the substantive content of a judicial pronouncement can still evolve through these modification and correction processes.

Source: Original reporting via Connecticut Judicial Branch