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.
AC46370 - Sicignano v. Pearce (“The plaintiff, Robert J. Sicignano, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his complaint against the defendants, Barbara Pearce and Connecticut Hospice, Inc. (Connecticut Hospice), pursuant to Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute, General Statutes § 52-196a. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred by: (1) ‘concluding [that] the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants fall within the ambit of protected constitutional conduct as defined by . . .§ 52-196a’; (2) ‘adopting language in the California anti-SLAPP statute and California case law not contained in the Connecticut anti-SLAPP statute in violation of the separation of powers under the constitution’; and (3) ‘adopting definitions of language in the Connecticut anti-SLAPP statute based upon California case law [interpreting] the California statute in violation of the rule against ex post facto legislation as applied to the courts through the due process clause.’ We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46348 - Rubin v. Brodie (“We agree with the plaintiffs’ first claim and conclude specifically that the court improperly determined that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain a derivative action to enforce the rights of the plaintiff LLCs in light of the court’s conclusion that their complaint sufficiently alleged demand futility. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the individual plaintiffs’ derivative action. We disagree with the plaintiffs’ second and third claims and therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff LLCs’ and the individual plaintiffs’ direct actions. We decline to review the plaintiffs’ fourth claim.”)
AC45493 - State v. Greene-Pendergrass (Violation of probation; “The issue presented in this appeal
is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the probation of
the defendant, Marque Greene-Pendergrass, and sentencing him to five years of
incarceration. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and,
accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)
AC46775 - State v. Maurice B. (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial impropriety and deprived him of a fair trial when the prosecutor made certain improper statements during the state’s rebuttal closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46910 - Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused
its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal; (2)
improperly concluded that he failed to establish that his trial counsel’s
performance was constitutionally deficient; and (3) improperly concluded that
he was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s deficient performance in the
underlying criminal proceeding. We disagree and dismiss the appeal.”)
AC46290 - Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin ("In this summary process action, the plaintiff, Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Lisa Glicklin. The plaintiff initiated this summary process action against the defendant claiming that the defendant repeatedly violated the plaintiff's smoke-free housing policy. In rendering judgment for the defendant, the trial court rejected the plaintiff's claim on the basis that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had not cured the violation of the plaintiff's policy. On appeal, the plaintiff raises interrelated claims. First, it claims that the court improperly raised sua sponte the unpleaded special defense of cure to defeat its summary process action. Second, it claims that, even if it was proper for the court to raise the special defense of cure sua sponte, the court improperly placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant did not cure her violations. The defendant, in addition to disputing the plaintiff's claims, argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action because of alleged inadequacies in the pretermination notice provided to the defendant. For the reasons that follow, we reject the defendant's jurisdictional argument and agree with the plaintiff that the court improperly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court.")
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Wednesday, October 9th
- Waterbury Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.
Thursday, October 10th
- Stamford Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Monday, October 14th
- All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed in observance of the holiday.
Tuesday, October 15th
- New London Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Rockville Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
Wednesday, October 16th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
- New London Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
- Rockville Law Library is closed.
Thursday, October 17th
- Rockville Law Library is closed.
Friday, October 18th
- Torrington Law Library opens at 12:15 p.m.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 15, for October 8, 2024 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 349: Connecticut Reports (Pages 783 - 845)
- Volume 349: Orders (Pages 924 - 924)
- Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 228: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 444 - 593)
- Volume 228: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 904)
- Volume 228: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
AC 46656 - Yanavich v. Yanavich ("The defendant, Joseph Yanavich, has presented two issues for our review in this postmarital dissolution appeal. First, he claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to modify alimony and child support. Second, he claims that the court improperly failed to impose sanctions on the plaintiff, his former wife, Jennifer M. Yanavich, after finding her in contempt for violating the terms of the dissolution judgment. More specifically, as to his first claim, he seeks our determination as to whether the retained earnings of a subchapter S corporation derived from past years’ earnings and distributed to its sole shareholder in a later year or years can be considered present income to the shareholder for purposes of setting his or her alimony and child support obligations. As to his second claim, he argues that the court abused its discretion by not imposing sanctions on the plaintiff after finding that she wilfully failed to prevent the minor children from being inappropriately exposed to the parties' disputes over financial issues in violation of the explicit terms of their marital separation agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC46182-
Belton v. Dragoi (“At issue on appeal is whether the trial court
properly rendered summary judgment for the defendants as to the plaintiff’s
claims that the defendants committed a battery on him and falsely arrested him.
Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded (1) with
respect to the alleged battery, that there are no genuine issues of material
fact as to whether the defendants used more than reasonable force during the
altercation and (2) with respect to the alleged false arrest, that (a) the
defendants were entitled to governmental immunity because the plaintiff had
failed to raise a claim of negligent false arrest and (b) there are no genuine
issues of material fact as to whether the defendants had probable cause to
arrest the plaintiff. We agree with the plaintiff’s first claim but disagree
with his other claims. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the
trial court.”)
AC47010 - S. S. v. D. M. (Application for order of civil protection; stalking; §
46b-16a; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly continued
in effect and further modified an order of civil protection for the benefit of
the plaintiff without making certain requisite factual findings. We agree and,
accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46606 -
Mills v. Statewide Grievance Committee (“The committee found that the
plaintiff acted incompetently in violation of rule 1.1 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct by failing to name his client’s business as a party to her
lawsuit and by failing to provide proof of the client’s individual damages. The
plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court improperly dismissed his appeal
because (1) the record does not provide clear and convincing evidence that he
acted incompetently in violation of rule 1.1, and (2) the committee abused its
discretion by ordering him to complete three hours of continuing legal education.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46307 - Thoma v. Watson ("The plaintiff, Reinald E. Thoma, as trustee of the Reinald E. Thoma Revocable Trust (trust), appeals following a trial to the court from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant David Watson on the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) made several errors related to the issue of permissive use of the disputed property, including improperly raising that issue sua sponte after the close of evidence despite the defendant's failure to raise it by way of special defense; (2) made additional errors 'concerning issues of intent, motive, and subjective understanding'; (3) erroneously found that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case by clear and convincing evidence; and (4) failed to comply with General Statutes § 47-31 (f) by not determining the parties' respective interests in the disputed property. We disagree with the plaintiff's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC47018 - Samsel v. Parks ("In this summary process action, the defendant, William Parks, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open the judgment of possession in favor of the plaintiff, Jozef Samsel. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to open the judgment. We dismiss the defendant's appeal as moot.")
AC46113 -
State ex rel. Dunn v. Connelly (“On appeal, the defendant claims that
(1) the court improperly denied her motion in limine, which sought to exclude
any evidence seized following a warrantless search of her property, on the
basis of its determination that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil
proceedings, and (2) the animal welfare statute, General Statutes (Supp. 2022)
§ 22-329a2 (g) and (h), violates her right a civil jury trial under article
first, § 19, of the Connecticut constitution. We disagree and affirm the judgment
of the court.”)
AC46897 - Brookfield v. Gohn ("The self-represented defendant, Hollene Gohn, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiffs, the town of Brookfield (town) and Francis W. Lollie, the town's zoning enforcement officer. On appeal, it appears that the defendant is claiming that by enjoining her from violating certain of the Brookfield Zoning Regulations (zoning regulations), the court erred by (1) incorrectly interpreting the applicable regulatory provisions, (2) violating her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, (3) holding an evidentiary hearing after the close of trial, (4) granting the relief sought by the plaintiffs despite insufficient evidence, and (5) failing to render its decision within 120 days. We are not persuaded by the defendant's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")
- SC20995 - In re Criminal Complaint & Application for Arrest
Warrant (“The plaintiffs in error, Diahann Phillips, Alison
Scofield, and Albert Bottone, filed this writ of error challenging the decision
by the Honorable Thomas J. Welch, declining to issue arrest warrants under General
Statutes § 9-368 for two individuals who allegedly violated election laws. The
defendant in error, the state of Connecticut, contends that we should dismiss
this writ of error because the plaintiffs in error are neither classically nor
statutorily aggrieved by the denial of their arrest warrant applications.
Although we disagree with the defendant in error that the plaintiffs in error
are required to establish statutory aggrievement to bring a writ of error, we
dismiss the writ on the ground that the plaintiffs in error are not classically
aggrieved.”)
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Thursday, October 3rd
- Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library is closed.
Friday, October 4th
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
- Stamford Law Library will be closed from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
Monday, October 7th
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, October 8th
- Middletown Law Library opens at 11:15 a.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Stamford Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
Wednesday, October 9th
- Waterbury Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.
Thursday, October 10th
- Stamford Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 14, for October 1, 2024 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 225 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 611 - 611
- Volume 349: Connecticut Reports (Pages 733 - 783)
- Volume 349: Orders (Pages 922 - 923)
- Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 228: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 290 - 444)
- Volume 228: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 904)
- Volume 228: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies