The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

Connecticut eLicense verification tool

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=471

The Connecticut eLicense web portal is an online database that allows you to verify professional licenses issued by certain Connecticut state agencies: Department of Consumer Protection, Department of Public Health, Department of Agriculture, OEC Child Care & Youth Camp Licensing, and CAES Department of Entomology.

If you need guidance on how to use the portal, the Department of Consumer Protection has created step-by-step instructions, as well as a short video that shows you how to perform a lookup. They also offer a useful discussion on the Difference Between a License, Registration, and Permit.

And for more information on which state agency is (or isn't) responsible for a profession's licensing and regulation, see the DCP's comprehensive A-Z Information Index.



Law Library Hours Update: May 24th - May 26th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=469

Wednesday, May 24th

  • Putnam Law Library will be closed.

Thursday, May 25th

  • Danbury Law Library will be open from 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
  • Hartford, Middletown and New Britain Law Library will open at 12:30 p.m.

Friday, May 26th

  • Danbury Law Library will be closed.
  • New Britain Law Library will open at 11:00 a.m.

See our regularly scheduled hours.


Medical Malpractice in Connecticut - 2017 Edition

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=468

The 2017 edition of Medical Malpractice in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides page.

Table of Contents

Section 1: Certificate of Good Faith, Reasonable Inquiry or Merit & Written Opinion Letter

Section 2: Automatic Ninety-Day Extension of Statute of Limitations

Figure 1: Petition to Clerk for Automatic Ninety Day Extension

Section 3: Elements of a Medical Malpractice Action

Section 4: Defenses

Section 5: Evidence

Table 1: Settlements and Verdicts in Connecticut Medical Malpractice Actions


Law Library Hours Update: May 24th - May 26th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=467

Wednesday, May 24th

  • Putnam Law Library will be closed.


Thursday, May 25th

  • Danbury Law Library will be open from 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
  • Hartford and New Britain Law Library will open at 12:30 p.m.

Friday, May 26th

  • Danbury Law Library will be closed.
  • New Britain Law Library will open at 11:00 a.m.

See our regularly scheduled hours.


LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Administrative Law and Practice

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=466

The 2017 edition of LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Administrative Law and Practice has been received by all of our law libraries. Each chapter of this guide offers analysis, strategies, checklists, and tips. The table of contents is listed below:

Chapter 1. Introduction to Administrative Law

Chapter 2. Rulemaking

Chapter 3. Freedom of Information - Public Meetings

Chapter 4. Freedom of Information - Public Records

Chapter 5. Contested Cases - The Prehearing Process

Chapter 6. The Anatomy of a Contested Case

Chapter 7. The Post-Hearing Process

Chapter 8. Collateral Estoppel, Res Judicata, Stare Decisis and the Equitable Defenses

Chapter 9. Overview of Local Administrative Law

Chapter 10. Ethical Issues for the Administrative Lawyer

Chapter 11. Where to Find Administrative Agency Materials

For additional information, please contact your local Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library.



Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=463

AC38753 - Rinfret v. Porter ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court improperly awarded the defendant, Melissa Jayne Porter, her attorney's fees under the bad faith exception to the 'American rule' by broadly concluding that the underlying custody action brought by the plaintiff, Peter Alan Rinfret, was both (1) 'entirely without color' and (2) taken in bad faith. We conclude that the court did not find with adequate specificity that the plaintiff's actions were entirely without color. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment awarding the defendant $87,548.11 in attorney's fees and remand the matter for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=462

AC37869 - Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Accurate Title Searches, Inc. (Negligence; "This is an action by the plaintiff, Chicago Title Insurance Company (Chicago Title), to recover damages from the defendant, Accurate Title Searches, Inc., for losses allegedly incurred by Ticor Title Insurance Company (Ticor Title), another title insurer with which the plaintiff later merged, due to the defendant's negligence in performing a title search as to a parcel of real property in Hartford (property). This is an action by the plaintiff, Chicago Title Insurance Company (Chicago Title), to recover damages from the defendant, Accurate Title Searches, Inc., for losses allegedly incurred by Ticor Title Insurance Company (Ticor Title), another title insurer with which the plaintiff later merged, due to the defendant's negligence in performing a title search as to a parcel of real property in Hartford (property)...."

"On the record before us, we agree with the trial court, Bright, J., that the plaintiff’s claim sounds in negligence, not in common-law identification, and thus that the defendant’s arguments as to what proof is required to prevail on a claim for indemnification are inapplicable to this case. On the other hand, we disagree with the trial court, Wiese, J., that the plaintiff’s claim for damages to compensate it for the attorney’s fees and expenses it incurred to defend its insured in prior litigation is barred in this action by the American rule. Accordingly, although we reverse the court’s judgment denying the plaintiff's claim for compensatory damages in the amount of its prior attorney's fees and expenses and remand this case for further proceedings on that claim, we affirm the court’s judgment in all other respects.")


Criminal Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=460

SC19526 - State v. Swebilius (Possession of child pornography first degree; plea of nolo contendere; certification from Appellate Court; "In State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443, 521 A.2d 1034 (1987), this court held that a criminal statute of limitations will be tolled by the issuance of an arrest warrant within the statutory limitation period, as long as the warrant is executed "without unreasonable delay." Id., 451. The defendant, Jon Swebilius, was charged with possession of child pornography in the first degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 53a-196d (a) and was arrested thirty-two days after the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and thirteen days after the expiration of the applicable five year statute of limitations for that offense. The defendant moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations because, he claimed, the delay in the execution of the warrant was unreasonable. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the delay was reasonable as a matter of law under Crawford and its progeny. State v. Swebilius, 158 Conn. App. 418, 423–28, 119 A.3d 601 (2015). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following question: "Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's decision denying the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to . . . Crawford . . . ?" (Citation omitted.) State v. Swebilius, 318 Conn. 907, 122 A.3d 635 (2015). We conclude that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that a thirty-two day delay in the execution of an arrest warrant, where the warrant was executed after the expiration of the limitation period, is reasonable as a matter of law such that the state was under no obligation to present evidence demonstrating that the delay was not objectively unreasonable and, therefore, excusable. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court with direction to remand the case to the trial court for a hearing on whether the delay in the execution of the warrant was reasonable under the circumstances.")

AC37808 - State v. Joseph R. B. (Risk of injury to child; "The defendant, Joseph R. B., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2011) § 53-21 (a) (1). The defendant claims that (1) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction and (2) certain comments made by the prosecutor violated his fifth amendment right to remain silent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Property Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=464

SC19568, SC19569 - Mayer v. Historic District Commission (Historic districts; certificate of appropriateness; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether the statutory aggrievement principles of General Statutes § 8-8 extend to appeals from the decisions of historic district commissions brought pursuant to General Statutes § 7-147i. The plaintiffs, Robert Mayer and Mary Pat Mayer, appeal from the judgments of the trial court dismissing their appeals from two decisions of the named defendant, the Historic District Commission of the Town of Groton (commission), with respect to alterations to a barn located on real property owned by the defendants Steven Young and Caroline Young (applicants). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly concluded that: (1) statutory aggrievement under § 8-8 does not extend to historic district commission appeals brought pursuant to § 7-147i; and (2) they had failed to establish that they were classically aggrieved with respect to each of the commission's two decisions. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")


Law Library Hours Update: May 22nd - May 26th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=461

Monday, May 22nd

  • New Britain Law Library will close at 2:30 p.m.

Tuesday, May 23rd

  • New London Law Library will close at 3:15 p.m.

Thursday, May 25th

  • Hartford and New Britain Law Library will open at 12:30 p.m.

Friday, May 26th

  • Danbury Law Library will be closed.
  • New Britain Law Library will open at 11:00 a.m.

See our regularly scheduled hours.


Law Library Hours Update: May 19th - May 26th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=459

Friday, May 19th

  • New London Law Library will close at 4:15 p.m.

Tuesday, May 23rd

  • New London Law Library will close at 3:15 p.m.

Thursday, May 25th

  • Hartford and New Britain Law Library will open at 12:30 p.m.

Friday, May 26th

  • Danbury Law Library will be closed.
  • New Britain Law Library will open at 11:00 a.m.

See our regularly scheduled hours.


Injunctions and Restraining Orders in Connecticut - 2017 Edition

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=458

The 2017 edition of Injunctions and Restraining Orders in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides page.

Table of Contents
Section 1: Applications for Injunction
Section 2: Modification and Dissolution of Injunction
Section 3: Enforcement of Injunction
Section 4: Specific Subjects of Injunctive Protection or Relief
Section 5: Appeal of Injunction

See our Domestic Violence in Connecticut research guide for coverage of family violence restraining and protective orders.



New Office of Legislative Research Reports

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=451

The Office of Legislative Research has recently published the following reports:


Land Use Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=455

SC19797 - Lyme Land Conservation Trust, Inc. v. Platner ("This case raises the questions of whether a conservation restriction on private property was violated by the owner of that property and, if so, whether the remedies ordered by the trial court were proper. The defendant Beverly Platner appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding legal and equitable relief to the plaintiff Lyme Land Conservation Trust, Inc., after concluding that the defendant had violated a conservation restriction granted to the plaintiff by a former owner of the defendant’s property. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly found violations of the conservation restriction by misinterpreting it and improperly ordered relief that was either legally unauthorized or lacking in evidentiary support. We agree with the trial court’s interpretation of the conservation restriction and its consequent finding that the defendant had violated it in multiple respects, and we see no impropriety with respect to the portion of the court’s judgment awarding the plaintiff equitable relief. We agree with the defendant, however, that the court’s award of punitive damages was noncompliant with the authorizing provision, General Statutes § 52-560a (d), and that its award of attorney’s fees, in one respect, was improper. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=454

AC38445 - Evans v. Tiger Claw, Inc.("The plaintiff, Christopher Evans, appeals from the judgment, rendered after a trial to the court, denying his claim for hourly wages allegedly due from the defendant, Tiger Claw, Inc. (defendant). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred (1) 'in failing to apply or misapplying fundamental tenets of wage and hour law'; (2) 'in applying an incorrect burden of proof'; and (3) 'in finding that [the] plaintiff has not proved that [the] defendant failed to pay any wages to which [the] plaintiff was otherwise entitled.' We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=453

AC38821 - Pressley v. Johnson ("This appeal stems from postdissolution proceedings in which the plaintiff, Jessica Lynn Pressley, moved that the defendant, Thomas H. Johnson III, be found in contempt of an order in the parties’ marital dissolution judgment requiring him to pay one half of work related child care expenses for the parties’ minor children. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in denying her motion for contempt and finding that the defendant did not owe her an arrearage for the work related child care expenses she had incurred. We agree with the plaintiff and thus reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=452

AC38301 - Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. v. Brunoli ("This breach of contract action arises out of the construction of a technology center at Naugatuck Valley Community College (project), which is owned by the state of Connecticut (state). In essence, the complaint alleged that the defendant general contractor breached the subcontract by preventing the plaintiff subcontractor from timely performing pursuant to the terms of the subcontract and by wrongly withholding funds from it. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37307 - Riley v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co. ("In this case arising from a fire at the home of the plaintiff, C. Andrew Riley, both parties appeal from the judgment of the trial court awarding damages and prejudgment interest to the plaintiff against his homeowners insurer, the defendant, Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, upon the jury’s verdict for the plaintiff on claims of breach of contract and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant claims initially that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff on his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and thus that the trial court erred in denying its motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, to set aside the verdict, and for remittitur. The defendant also claims that the court erred in allowing the plaintiff’s two expert witnesses to testify over its objection at trial because one of those witnesses was not qualified to render an expert opinion in this case and neither witness had based his expert opinions on a scientifically reliable methodology. In his cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding him prejudgment interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3a at the rate of 3 percent instead of 10 percent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")