Taylor v. Frazier: Connecticut Court Opinion Released

The excerpt from *Taylor v. Frazier* in Connecticut clarifies that the "officially released" date appearing in a judicial opinion is the definitive trigger for all time periods related to filing post-opinion motions and petitions for certification.

This procedural clarification holds significant legal weight for practitioners, as it establishes the precise commencement point for critical appellate deadlines. For attorneys, understanding and meticulously tracking this date is paramount to preserving clients' rights to seek reconsideration, reargument, or further review by a higher court. Failure to adhere strictly to these timeframes, which are often jurisdictional, can result in the forfeiture of crucial post-judgment remedies, thereby impacting the finality and enforceability of judicial decisions.

The legal context for this directive is rooted in Connecticut's appellate procedure, primarily governed by the Connecticut Practice Book. This body of rules dictates the conduct of litigation and appeals within the state's judicial system, including the specific timeframes for filing various post-judgment motions. The "officially released" date ensures uniformity and predictability in calculating these deadlines, preventing ambiguity that could arise from other publication dates or informal release times. While the specific parties, Taylor and Frazier, are identified in the case title, the excerpt focuses solely on this procedural clarification rather than the substantive details of their dispute.

For legal professionals practicing in Connecticut, the key takeaway is the absolute necessity of implementing robust docketing and calendaring systems that are directly tied to the "officially released" date of every judicial opinion. Attorneys must proactively monitor the Connecticut Law Journal or official slip opinions to identify this date promptly. Advising clients on the strict nature of these deadlines and ensuring internal firm procedures are aligned with this rule is essential to avoid procedural missteps that could have severe consequences for a case's trajectory and outcome.