Published decisions and news articles

Second Circuit Court of Appeals:

• Oliviera v. Mayer, 23 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 1994).

Federal District Court:

• Strohmeyer v. Met Life, et al., 365 F. Supp. 2d 258 (D. Conn. 2005).
• Quinones v. Meachum, 811 F.Supp. 776 (D. Conn. 1991).

Connecticut supreme court:

• Kortner v. Martise, 312 Conn. 1 (2014).
• Ruggiero v. Pellicci, 294 Conn. 473 (2010).
• State v. DeCaro, 280 Conn. 456 (2006).
• State v. DeCaro, 252 Conn. 229 (2000).
• State v. McDougal, 241 Conn. 502 (1997).

Connecticut appellate court:

• Cavaliere v. Olmsted, 98 Conn. App. 343 (2006).
• State v. Borrelli, 94 Conn. App. 849, 895 A.2d 257 (2006).
• State v. Carswell, 36 Conn. App. 336, 650 A.2d 924 (1994).
• State v. Quinones, 21 Conn. App. 506 (1990).

New York State court:

• People v. Saunders, 531 N.Y.S.2d 987, 140 Misc.2d 544 (1988) (a selected published opinion from Attorney Russell’s career as a Bronx County Assistant District Attorney).

Other Cases of Interest:

United States of America v. Russell, 639 F. Supp. 2d 226 (D. Conn. 2007).

This Amicus Curiae brief was filed by the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, written by Attorney Moira Buckley in response to a federal criminal case brought against Attorney Philip Russell in 2007.  The motion to dismiss was denied and the case was resolved by the payment of a fine.

Attorney Russell’s case caused a firestorm among defense attorneys nationwide, as he was prosecuted by the federal government for conduct which was lawful except for the newly interpreted Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was intended to govern public companies, national accounting principles, and privately held corporations.

Ironically, as a direct result of the case, Philip Russell, LLC receives a substantial portion of its new matters from referrals from other attorneys for its unmatched reputation among lawyers for professionalism, service, and results.

State v. Fernando A., 294 Conn. 1, 981 A.2d 427 (2009).

Fernando A is a landmark decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court which grants the right to a hearing to challenge the sufficiency of the State’s evidence to maintain a criminal protective order when that order is issued in connection with a defendant’s arrest on domestic violence charges.

United States of America v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2001)

Thomas is an important case relating to federal sentencing guidelines. An Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief filed was filed by Philip Russell LLC and Seifert & Hogan on behalf of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association