AC40437 - In re Kyllan V. (Termination of parental rights; collateral estoppel; "The respondent father appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights with respect to his biological daughter, K, pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-717 (g). The respondent claims on appeal that the trial court improperly relied on the adjudicatory findings from a prior proceeding involving two of his other children to support the adjudicatory ground in the present case, namely, that because of a parental act of commission or omission, K was denied care, guidance, or control necessary for her physical, educational, moral, or emotional well-being as required by the statute. We agree with the respondent that the trial court improperly applied collateral estoppel in determining that K was denied the care, guidance, or control necessary for her physical, educational, moral, or emotional well-being as a result of the respondent's act of commission or omission. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 35, for February 27, 2018 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 328: Connecticut Reports (Pages 172 - 247)
• Volume 328: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 179: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 776 - 885)
• Volume 179: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 909 - 910)
• Volume 179: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

Wondering if there is a Connecticut treatise on contract litigation? Looking for Connecticut-specific civil discovery forms?

The Connecticut Treatise Index is a comprehensive listing of contemporary Connecticut legal treatises and form books, organized into useful subject headings. It has been recently updated to include all Connecticut materials as of February 2018.

Some examples of newly released or revised Connecticut law books you'll find in the index:

• Connecticut Business Litigation 2d, by Finn & Cedillo
• Connecticut Workers' Compensation after Reforms 7th, by Sevarino
• Connecticut Foreclosures 8th, by Caron & Milne

You can contact one of our twelve law libraries located throughout the state with questions about any of the materials listed in the index.

• Posted in:
• FAQ,
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• New in the Libraries

AC39241 - Toland v. Toland ("The plaintiff, Lita Wickser Toland, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant, John Gerard Toland, rendered after the court denied her motion to vacate and granted the defendant’s motion to confirm an arbitrator’s award. On appeal, the plaintiff claims (1) that the arbitration proceeding involved a restricted submission, warranting expanded judicial review of the arbitrator’s award of alimony and property division. Alternatively, she argues that the trial court improperly confirmed the award because: (2) the award violates the public policy underlying General Statutes §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82 and case law construing those statutes; (3) the award contravenes General Statutes § 52-418 given the arbitrator’s evident partiality and manifest disregard of the law; (4) the trial court committed plain error by confirming the arbitrator’s decision; and (5) the arbitrator improperly awarded attorney’s fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38991 - Kimberly C. v. Anthony C. ("The plaintiff, Kimberly C., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant, Anthony C. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) awarded the parties joint legal custody of their minor child by relitigating the issue of the occurrence of domestic violence between the parties when that issue had been determined in a prior proceeding and the court was bound by the finding on domestic violence in that proceeding by virtue of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and (2) denied the plaintiff’s motions for sexual behavior evaluation and substance abuse evaluation of the defendant. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC19815 - A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (Administrative appeal; "After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC38667 - State v. Robert S. (Criminal violation of protective order; sufficiency of evidence; "The defendant, Robert S., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction, and (2) the trial court denied him due process by using, and denying him the opportunity to contest, unreliable information during sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. ")

AC39613 - State v. Pecor (Robbery in second degree; "The defendant, Gary Alan Pecor, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to address his motion to correct. He also claims that this court should find, as matter of law, that his sentence is illegal and remand the case to the trial court with direction to resentence him as he has requested. The state agrees that the trial court incorrectly dismissed the defendant's motion to correct, but argues that the defendant's claim of illegality is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The state asks this court to reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with instruction that the court deny the defendant's motion, or, in the alternative, that this court remand the case to the trial court for a hearing on the merits. We agree with the parties that the trial court erred in dismissing the defendant's motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We disagree, though, that res judicata precludes the defendant's claim. We also disagree with the defendant that we should address the merits of his claim on the basis of the record before us. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the case for a hearing on the merits of the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. ")

AC39781 - State v. Bobe (Sexual assault in second degree; risk of injury to child; "The defendant, Anibal Bobe, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1), and of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1), and risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence hearsay and double hearsay through the testimony of the victim. We conclude that any claimed error was harmless and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC39988 - Cliff's Auto Body, Inc. v. Grenier ("The defendant, Carl M. Grenier, appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff Basley Holdings, Inc. The defendant's principal claim on appeal is that it was improper for the court, Hon. Robert C. Leuba, judge trial referee, to deny his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC39009 - Frantzen v. Davenport Electric ("This case presents the issue of whether the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission) has the statutory authority, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-327 (b),1 to decide fee disputes among attorneys who have represented a claimant at different times during the pendency of a case before the commission… On appeal, Vaccaro claims (1) that the commission does not have subject matter jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding attorney’s fees between lawyers who serially represented a claimant and (2) that the commissioner and the board deprived Vaccaro of his constitutional right to have the attendant factual issues resolved by a jury. We disagree with Vaccaro’s claims and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Workers' Compensation Law

SC19806 - Harnage v. Lightner (Civil action against state employees; "The self-represented plaintiff, James A. Harnage, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court; see Harnage v. Lightner, 163 Conn. App. 337, 362, 137 A.3d 10 (2016); affirming the judgment of the trial court, which dismissed his action against the defendant state employees in their individual capacities for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient service of process. We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following question: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiff's action against the defendants in their individual capacities properly was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction?" Harnage v. Lightner, 323 Conn. 902, 150 A.3d 683 (2016). We answer the certified question in the affirmative. ")

AC38581 - Brady v. Bickford (Intentional infliction of emotional distress; "The claims of emotional distress and defamation at issue in this appeal arise out of a long-running family dispute involving malicious gossip and unsubstantiated allegations of police misconduct that led to two state police internal affairs investigations, two arrests of the same defendant, a protective order, intervention by the Attorney General and the Department of Public Safety, a complaint to the Freedom of Information Commission (commission), and a daughter's refusing further contact with her parents. Following a four day trial to the court, the court concluded that the statements at issue were protected by the litigation privilege and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. The litigation privilege affords absolute immunity to the speaker and implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction. We vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to render a judgment of dismissal.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 34, for February 20, 2018 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 328: Connecticut Reports (Pages 60 - 172)
• Volume 328: Orders (Pages 908 - 909)
• Volume 328: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 179: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 721 - 775)
• Volume 179: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 907 - 908)
• Volume 179: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

SC19828 - Doe v. West Hartford ("This certified appeal requires us to construe General Statutes § 52-593a, a remedial savings statute that operates to render an action timely commenced as long as process is delivered to a marshal prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations and served within thirty days. The defendants, three groups of individuals and entities involved in the 2007 involuntary psychiatric hospitalization of the plaintiff, John Doe, appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in their favor. They claim that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that (1) the requirement in § 52-593a (b) that a marshal shall endorse under oath on the return of service the date on which process was delivered to him or her, is directory, rather than mandatory, and (2) there existed a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the plaintiff had delivered the process to a marshal within the applicable limitation period. We conclude that § 52-593a (b) does not preclude a plaintiff from proving timely delivery of process to the marshal by means other than the statutorily prescribed method. We further conclude that there existed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether timely delivery was made. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

Friday, February 16th

• New London Law Library will be closed.

Wednesday, February 21st

• Danbury Law Library will be open until 1:00 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC38887 - Alaimo v. Alaimo ("In this action for damages based on breach of contract, the plaintiff, Benjamin M. Alaimo, appeals, following a bench trial, from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Matthew J. Alaimo. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in finding against him on the complaint and in favor of the defendant on his special defenses premised on the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC38103, AC38104, AC38105 - State v. Smith (Operating motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs; tampering with witness; "In these consolidated appeals, the defendant, Brian Smith, appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1), and tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151 (a). The defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug and (2) the court erroneously admitted certain evidence relating to the witness tampering count. We affirm the judgments of the trial court."

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC39520 - Stratek Plastics, Ltd. v. Ibar ("In this action for the foreclosure of a judgment lien, the defendant, Jean Pierre Ibar, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for attorney's fees filed by the plaintiff, Stratek Plastics, Ltd. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in awarding attorney's fees because (1) there had been no hearing as to the form of the judgment or the limitation of time for redemption as required by General Statutes § 52-249 (a); and (2) the plaintiff failed to present a statement of the fees requested and services rendered at the time of the trial. We disagree that the award of attorney's fees was improper. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

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

Institutional Aid for Undocumented Students - 2018-R-0033 - This report describes the types of institutional aid that undocumented students would have been able to receive from Connecticut public higher education institutions if Senate Bill 17 (2017) had become law.

Reverse Mortgage Counseling Requirements - 2018-R-0053 - This report summarizes federal reverse mortgage counseling requirements and provides examples of requirements enacted in other states.

States Offering Legal Sports Betting - 2018-R-0059 - This report summarizes the types of games that states with legal sports betting may offer.

Mandatory Reporting of Elder Abuse - 2018-R-0068 - This report provides information on Connecticut's elder abuse reporting requirements and statutory penalties.

Special Parole - 2018-R-0038 - This report provides a summary of Connecticut's Special Parole System.

Motor Fuel Taxes - 2018-R-0054 - This report briefly explains the Connecticut taxes that apply to motor fuels and how the rates have changed since 1990. It also provides the revenue raised and how it compares to similar taxes in other states.

E-Cigarettes and Minors - 2018-R-0039 - This report describes the laws on the sale or use of electronic nicotine delivery systems and vapor products that apply to minors.

Impact of Limiting the SALT Deduction on Connecticut - 2018-R-0028 - This report explains the new federal tax law's (1) limit on the state and local tax deduction and (2) impact on Connecticut taxpayers and the state budget.

Tenants, Lodgers, and Long-Term Guests - 2018-R-0050 - This report explains how Connecticut law (1) differentiates between tenants and lodgers and (2) determines when a guest may gain the protections of a tenant.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 33, for February 13, 2018 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 328: Connecticut Reports (Pages 38 - 60)
• Volume 328: Orders (Pages 903 - 908)
• Volume 328: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 179: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 605 - 721)
• Volume 179: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 906 - 907)
• Volume 179: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

AC40602 - In re Sandy J. M.-M. (Probate appeal; whether trial court improperly dismissed appeal from decision of Probate Court dismissing petition by minor child seeking special immigrant juvenile status findings and denying petition for removal of guardian; "The petitioner, Sandy J. M.-M., asks this court, by way of a motion filed on January 9, 2018, to reverse summarily the trial court’s dismissal of her appeal from a decision of the Probate Court denying her petition seeking special immigrant juvenile status findings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a) (27) (J) (2012); General Statutes § 45a-608n (b). We conclude that the resolution of this appeal is controlled by our Supreme Court’s recent decision in In re Henrry P. B.-P., 327 Conn. 312, 173 A.3d 928 (2017), and that summary reversal is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we grant the petitioner's motion and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Probate Law,
• Recent Opinions

Monday, February 12th

• All Judicial Branch Law Libraries will be closed in observance of Lincoln's Birthday.

Thursday, February 15th

• Danbury Law Library will be open from 10:00 a.m. - 4:15 p.m.
• Bridgeport Law Library will be open until 4:00 p.m.

Friday, February 16th

• New London Law Library will be closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC39301 - ASPIC, LLC v. Poitier ("The defendant, Brack G. Poitier, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the prejudgment remedy application filed by the plaintiff, ASPIC, LLC. The defendant claims that the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff a $1 million prejudgment remedy because he specifically had pleaded, inter alia, a defense of breach of fiduciary duties, which required the court to shift the burden to the plaintiff to establish fair dealing, and the court failed to do so. He also claims that even if the court appears to have shifted the burden, the record was devoid of evidence to demonstrate fair dealing. Finally, the defendant claims that the trial court failed to make any finding that the plaintiff had met its burden to show that there was probable cause that it would prevail in establishing that the transactions at issue were the product of fair dealing. We agree with the defendant and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions