judgments. When a defendant has violated a court judgment or order, its subsequently coming into compliance before the hearing does not deprive the court of jurisdiction of the matter. Otherwise a defendant could violate a court order or judgment and then comply with it without the court having power to reach him.’ ” Id., 365. This court held that the trial court “properly stated the rule of law in Connecticut. [T]he trial court’s continuing jurisdiction is not separate from, but, rather, derives from, its equitable authority to vindicate judgments. Moreover, we [held] that such equitable authority does not derive from the trial court’s contempt power, but, rather, from its inherent powers. See Connecticut Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Milano, [191 Conn. 555, 563, 468 A.2d 1230 (1983)] (<HOLDING>); Papa v. New Haven Federation of Teachers, 186
recognizing the broad power of federal courts to fashion appropriate relief recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals recognizing trial courts power to fashion a remedy appropriate to the vindication of a prior consent judgment holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation recognizing constructive trust as appropriate equitable remedy