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.

Law Library Hours: December 6th - December 15th

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5682

Wednesday, December 6th

  • New London Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed from 1:45 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.

Thursday, December 7th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
  • New Britain Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m. and closes at 4:45 p.m.

Friday, December 8th

  • Middletown Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.

Monday, December 11th

  • Putnam Law Library is closed from 1:45 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.

Tuesday, December 12th

  • Middletown Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
  • New London Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.

Wednesday, December 13th

  • Putnam Law Library is closed from 1:45 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.

Friday, December 15th

  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.


Connecticut Law Journal - December 5, 2023

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5681

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 23, for December 5, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 331 - 332)
  • Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 222: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 584 - 693)
  • Volume 222: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices



Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Carey, Sean

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5679

AC45933 - Liberty Ins. Corp. v. Johnson ("The defendants, Theodore Johnson (Theodore) and Kim Johnson (Kim), appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court following its granting of a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs, Liberty Insurance Corporation (Liberty Insurance), Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) and Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (Safeco). The primary issue in this appeal concerns whether the trial court properly determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiffs do not have a duty to defend the defendants from claims asserted against them in a separate action that stemmed from a motor vehicle accident in which the defendants’ son, Aaron Johnson (Aaron), was driving a motor vehicle owned by Theodore when he lost control of the vehicle and struck a telephone pole, causing serious injuries to a passenger in the vehicle, Jordan Torres. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)


Quo Warranto Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5678

AC45662 - Speer v. Brown Jacobson P.C. ("The self-represented plaintiff, Sheri Speer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing, on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel, her quo warranto action challenging the qualifications of the defendants Brown Jacobson P.C. (Brown Jacobson) and one of its attorneys, Aimee Wickless, to serve as corporation counsel for the defendant city of Norwich (city). On appeal, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded that her claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. We agree and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5677

AC45675 - Raynor v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly determined that he failed to establish that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel during his criminal trial. Specifically, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erroneously determined that his trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance (1) by failing to object to uncharged misconduct evidence, and (2) by failing to limit the scope of cell site location information (CSLI) evidence by either requesting a Porter hearing or presenting a witness to challenge the state’s CSLI expert. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC46491 - Bennett v. Commissioner of Correction (“The self-represented petitioner, Erick Bennett, appeals, following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court denying his motion to open and/or vacate the judgment denying his third amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (motion to open). Although the petitioner challenges the merits of the habeas court’s denial of his motion to open, he has failed to brief the threshold issue of whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5676

AC45774 - Speer v. Danjon Capital, Inc. ("The self-represented plaintiff, Sheri Speer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her present action against the defendant, Danjon Capital, Inc., as a sanction for abuse of discovery. On appeal, she claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by dismissing this action as a sanction for her alleged discovery abuse, which it found that she had engaged in by insisting repeatedly that she had served the defendant with requests for admissions to which the defendant had failed to respond although the court file and her own records contradicted her claim that requests for admissions had been served; (2) improperly denied her timely motion for reassignment of all matters concerning the amount of attorney's fees she should be ordered to pay the defendant as a sanction for her discovery abuse after the court failed to decide that matter within 120 days of the parties' final court-ordered submission thereon; and (3) erred in denying her motion for summary judgment. We agree with the plaintiff that the court improperly dismissed this action as a sanction for her alleged abuse of discovery and that it improperly denied her motion for reassignment of the pending matter concerning the amount of attorney's fees that should be awarded to the defendant as a sanction for her discovery abuse, which the court failed to decide within 120 days of the last court-ordered submission on that matter. We dismiss that portion of the plaintiff's appeal challenging the purported denial of her motion for summary judgment."

________________________

"As for the plaintiff's third claim, alleging error in the denial of her motion for summary judgment, we lack jurisdiction to decide that claim because the plaintiff's motion was not, in fact, denied, or otherwise finally adjudicated. In addition, we note that the denial of a motion for summary judgment, except in limited circumstances that do not exist here, is not an appealable final judgment over which we would have jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kellogg v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 211 Conn. App. 335, 346–47, 272 A.3d 677 (2022).

The judgment of dismissal, the order requiring the plaintiff to pay attorney's fees to the defendant, and the denial of the plaintiff's motion for reassignment are reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; the portion of the appeal pertaining to the purported denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is dismissed.")