Ronald Gold v. John G. Rowland

Summary

The court held that the plaintiff's state constitutional takings and due process claims were barred at the jurisdictional pleading stage because he did not allege or present evidence that the state received the disputed stock as agent for the plaintiff class. The court also held that the insurance company defendants lacked standing to appeal the dismissal of claims against the state, and that the plaintiff's constructive-trust and resulting-trust claims were barred by sovereign immunity. Because no substantive claim against the state survived, the interpleader claims also had to be dismissed. Justice Palmer, dissenting in part, would have allowed the takings claim to proceed, and Justice Schaller, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have allowed both the takings claim and the insurance defendants' cross appeal to proceed.