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.
Friday, June 9th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, June 13th
- Middletown Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- New Haven Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- New London Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed from 12:15 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
Wednesday, June 14th
- New London Law Library is closed from 2:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Thursday, June 15th
- New Britain Law Library is closed from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.
AC46117
- In re Timothy B. (“The respondent mother, T’Naja T., appeals from the
judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to
her minor children, T and A.1 On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial
court improperly (1) concluded that the Department of Children and Families
(department) made reasonable efforts to reunify her with the children and that
she was unable or unwilling to benefit from those reunification efforts and (2)
considered the best interests of the children during the adjudicatory phase of
the termination proceeding. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)
SC20734 - State v. Langston (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the sentencing court’s
consideration of conduct related to a charge of which he was acquitted violated
his rights to due process and to a trial by jury under the sixth and fourteenth
amendments to the United States constitution and article first, §§ 8 and 19, of
the Connecticut constitution. The defendant also urges us, in the absence of a
constitutional violation, to use our supervisory authority to prohibit
consideration of acquitted conduct during sentencing. Although we do not
endorse that practice, we decline to reverse the trial court’s denial of the
defendant’s motion because (1) a long line of both federal and state precedent
has allowed significant latitude for what judges may consider during sentencing
and has permitted sentencing courts to consider a wide range of conduct,
including conduct related to acquitted charges, and (2) the sentence imposed by
the sentencing court in this case was within the statutorily prescribed range
for the counts of conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial
of the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence.”)
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 48, for June 6, 2023 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 605 - 642)
- Volume 346: Orders (Pages 1023 - 1024)
- Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 219: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 629 - 792)
- Volume 219: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
AC45917
- In re Marie J. (“The respondent father, Juan J., appeals from the
judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner
of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights with respect to his
daughter, Marie. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) improperly
concluded that the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that
(a) the respondent failed to rehabilitate in accordance with General Statutes §
17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) and (b) there was no ongoing parent-child relationship
pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (D), and (2) abused its discretion by denying S’s
motion to transfer guardianship to Marie’s maternal grandmother, Elizabeth,
pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-129 (j). We affirm the judgment of the trial
court.”)
AC44554 - Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC (“Pursuant to Connecticut wage laws, an employer may claim a credit for gratuities received by service employees in the restaurant industry as a percentage of the minimum fair wage (tip credit) it would otherwise be required to pay, and the Labor Commissioner (commissioner), acting through the Department of Labor (department), is tasked with adopting regulations regarding the tip credit. See General Statutes § 31-60 (b); see also Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-62-E1 et seq. (March 8, 2015). The defendant, C & L Diners, LLC, appeals, and the plaintiff, Valerie Nettleton, cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff on her claims for violations of the minimum wage regulations. The court rendered summary judgment for the plaintiff on her complaint alleging that the defendant violated §§ 31-62-E3 and 31-62-E4 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies and for the defendant on its good faith defense to the plaintiff’s claim for penalty damages pursuant to General Statutes (Supp. 2016) § 31-68 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) § 31-68 (a) provides a private cause of action for a recordkeeping violation under § 31-62-E3 of the regulations and (2) the ‘side work’ performed by the plaintiff while working as a server constituted ‘nonservice’ work under § 31-62-E4 of the regulations. In her cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant established its good faith defense. We agree with the defendant’s first claim and the plaintiff’s claim and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings.”)
AC44909 - Cody Real Estate, LLC v. G & H Catering, Inc. (Nonpayment of rent under commercial lease agreement, breach of guarantee agreement; "In this action brought by the plaintiff landlord, Cody Real Estate, LLC, against the defendant tenant, G & H Catering, Inc., now known as Garelick & Herbs of New Canaan, Inc. (tenant), for nonpayment of rent due under a commercial lease agreement, and against the defendant guarantors of the lease, Garelick & Herbs of Greenwich, Inc., and Garelick & Herbs, Inc., now known as Garelick & Herbs of Westport, Inc. (corporate guarantors), the corporate guarantors appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered against them, following a trial to the court, in the amount of $362,948.61 for unpaid rent and other charges stemming from the tenant's breach of the lease. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC45186 - R. H. v. M. H. (Dissolution of marriage; emergency ex parte order of custody; postdissolution motion to modify custody; "In this custody dispute, the defendant mother, M. H., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postdissolution motion of the plaintiff father, R. H., for modification of custody and access seeking sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two minor children. On appeal, the defendant argues that the court improperly (1) granted the plaintiff's October 30, 2019 application for an emergency ex parte order for custody of the children, (2) delegated its judicial authority by giving the plaintiff decision-making authority over the defendant's access to the children, and (3) infringed on her privacy rights, first by allowing testimony about her medical information and, second, by including her medical information in its November 18, 2021 memorandum of decision without sealing the decision. We agree with the defendant's second claim but disagree with her remaining claims. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.")
AC45929 - In re
Prince S. (“The respondent mother appeals from the judgments
of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of
Children and Families, terminating her parental rights as to Prince S. and
Arella G., her minor children.1 On appeal, the respondent claims that the court
improperly (1) concluded that she failed to achieve a sufficient degree of
personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B), and
(2) relied on hearsay evidence in so concluding. We affirm the judgments of the
trial court.”)
Wednesday, May 31
- New London Law Library is closed from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Thursday, June 1st
- Danbury Law Library is closed from 1:15 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- New Haven Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- New London Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
Friday, June 2nd
- New Haven Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
Thursday, June 8th
- All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Friday, June 9th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library closed from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 47, for May 30, 2023 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 564 - 604)
- Volume 346: Orders (Pages 1021 - 1022)
- Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 219: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 553 - 629)
- Volume 219: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 902)
- Volume 219: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
Tuesday, May 23rd
- New London Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Putnum Law Library is closed from 2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 24th
- Torrington Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.
Thursday, May 25th
- Hartford Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
Friday, May 26th
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- Hartford Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed.
Monday, May 29th
- All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed in observance of the holiday.
Wednesday, May 31
- New London Law Library is closed from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Thursday, June 1st
- Danbury Law Library is closed from 1:15 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- New Haven Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- New London Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
Friday, June 2nd
- Putnam Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
SC20647 - Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (“The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG (Deutsche Bank), brought this action against the defendants, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI), and Alexander Vik, SHI’s sole shareholder and director, seeking, inter alia, to enforce an approximately $243 million foreign judgment (English judgment) against Vik. Following a five day trial to the court, the trial court denied Deutsche Bank’s requested relief and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. On appeal, Deutsche Bank claims that the trial court improperly declined to pierce SHI’s corporate veil and to hold Vik jointly and severally liable with SHI for the English judgment. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC45565 - John Hancock Life Ins. Co.
v. Curtin ("On
appeal, Curtin and Schalm claim that the court improperly determined that Schalm was not entitled to the
insurance proceeds because a provision in the dissolution separation agreement, which required the decedent
to maintain certain life insurance designating Schalm
as the beneficiary, set forth Curtin’s remedy for the
decedent’s failure to maintain such insurance. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC42991 - State v. Olivero (“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court
incorrectly denied his pretrial motion to dismiss the charges of first degree
burglary and home invasion, (2) the trial court abused its discretion by
denying his requests to present testimony in support of his pretrial motion to
dismiss, (3) the trial judge, White, J., improperly failed, sua sponte, to
disqualify himself from presiding over the defendant’s jury trial because Judge
White previously had denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and used the term
‘victim’ in various pretrial hearings, (4) the trial court improperly
restricted his ability to cross-examine the victim concerning the content of
certain text messages, and (5) the prosecutor’s use of the term ‘victim’ during
the trial and in closing argument deprived him of his constitutional right to a
fair trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC45043 - U.S. Bank National Assn. v. Weinbaum ("In this foreclosure action, the defendant, Sholeh Weinbaum, appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee for Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-4. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied her motion to set aside the default that was entered against her for failing to plead because the plaintiff's motion for judgment was filed prematurely. Alternatively, she makes the related claim that the default was set aside by operation of law when she filed her answer and special defenses. Lastly, she claims that the court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to set aside the default. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
The Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has recently released the following new reports:
Jennifer's Law - 2023-R-0107 - Provides information on Jennifer’s law in Connecticut.
The Dual Roles and Responsibilities of Local and Regional Boards of Education - 2023-R-0097 - When are local and regional board of education members considered “agents of the state” in
Connecticut? Do local and regional boards of education have latitude when implementing state-mandated policies? What authority do boards of education have to make educational policy on their
own?
Case Statistics for Firearms – Related
Offenses (Dispositions)
- 2023-R-0110 - Provides statistics on the disposition of firearms-related offenses in Connecticut for
fiscal years (FY) 2013 through 2022. (It updates OLR Report
2022-R-0061 by adding case
outcomes for FY 22.)
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 46, for May 23, 2023 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 346: Orders (Pages 1019 - 1020)
- Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 219: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 343 - 552)
- Volume 219: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
- Volume 219: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
Tuesday, May 23rd
- New London Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Putnum Law Library is closed from 2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.
Wednesday, May 24th
- Torrington Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.
Thursday, May 25th
- Torrington Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
Friday, May 26th
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- Hartford Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.