Ronald Gold v. John G. Rowland

Summary

The court held that the plaintiff's state constitutional takings and due process claims were barred because the complaint and record did not establish that the state received the disputed stock as agent for the plaintiff class. It also held that the insurance company defendants lacked standing to challenge dismissal of the claims against the state, and that the constructive-trust and resulting-trust claims were barred by sovereign immunity. The interpleader claims therefore also had to be dismissed because no substantive claim against the state survived. Justice Schaller and Justice Palmer, dissenting in part, would have allowed the takings claim to proceed, and Justice Schaller also would have recognized the insurance defendants' standing.