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.

Juvenile Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3113

AC41106 - In re Briana G. (Termination of parental rights to three minor children; “On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) prematurely determined that the respondent failed to rehabilitate because the Department of Children and Families (department) did not provide him with sufficient time and resources to do so, and (2) improperly admitted into evidence transcripts of text messages obtained by the police, although a proper chain of custody was not proved prior to their admission. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3112

AC39879 - Grover v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) erroneously determined that he was not denied his constitutional rights to counsel free from conflicts of interest and to the effective assistance of counsel.”)

AC39632 - Edwards v. Commissioner of Correction ("Claim of ineffective assistance; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that because his trial counsel, Raul Davila, failed to subject the state’s case against him to any meaningful adversarial testing, his claim is controlled by United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1984), and prejudice should be presumed. On that basis, he claims that the habeas court should have granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, set aside his conviction and the revocation of his probation, and remanded his case for a new trial. We agree, and therefore reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC39519 - Dupigney v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition for writ of habeas corpus; “In this certified appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Family Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3111

SC19870 - Shirley P. v. Norman P. ("The plaintiff, Shirley P., brought the present action, seeking the dissolution of her marriage to the defendant, Norman P., after the defendant allegedly sexually assaulted her. While this dissolution action was pending, the defendant was convicted of several criminal offenses arising from the alleged assault. The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction in that case to the Appellate Court. Thereafter, while the criminal appeal was pending, the dissolution trial commenced. At that trial, the court allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of the criminal conviction. More specifically, the court ruled that the defendant’s conviction had preclusive effect in this dissolution action under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Consequently, following the trial in the present case, the court concluded, solely on the basis of the evidence of the criminal conviction, that the defendant exclusively was responsible for the marital breakdown. Accordingly, the court entered a property division award that heavily favored the plaintiff. The defendant then filed the present appeal.")


Connecticut Law Journal - July 31, 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3110

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 5, for July 31, 2018 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 329: Connecticut Reports (Pages 554 - 647)
  • Volume 329: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 183: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 724 - 874)
  • Volume 183: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3107

AC36586 - State v. Jerzy G. (Pretrial program of accelerated rehabilitation; sexual assault in fourth degree; motion to dismiss; "This case returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court with direction to consider the merits of the appeal of the deported defendant, Jerzy G. He challenges the trial court's rulings terminating his participation in the accelerated rehabilitation program and declining to dismiss the criminal charge against him. This court previously dismissed the appeal as moot under State v. Aquino, 279 Conn. 293, 901 A.2d 1194 (2006). State v. Jerzy G., 162 Conn. App. 156, 130 A.3d 303 (2015), rev'd, 326 Conn. 206, 162 A.3d 692 (2017). Holding that Aquino does not control the present case, our Supreme Court reversed this court's judgment and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings. State v. Jerzy G., 326 Conn. 206, 208–209, 226, 162 A.3d 692 (2017). The parties then filed supplemental briefs. We affirm the trial court's orders declining to dismiss the charge and terminating of probation.")

AC39432 - State v. Harris (Criminal possession of firearm; "The defendant, Jermaine Harris, was charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, felony murder, robbery in the first degree, carrying a pistol without a permit and criminal possession of a firearm. He elected a jury trial except as to the latter most charge, which was tried to the court. The jury was unable to reach a verdict. The court, however, found the defendant guilty of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1), and sentenced him to five years incarceration. He now appeals, claiming that (1) the court's finding of guilt and its sentence deprived him of his constitutional rights under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3108

AC39970 - Martowska v. White ("The plaintiff, Matthew M. Martowska, appeals from the 2016 postjudgment order of the trial court that, although allowing the plaintiff to inspect a psychological evaluation performed in 2012 as part of a then pending proceeding regarding the parties’ custody/visitation matter, prevented the plaintiff from obtaining a copy of the evaluation. On appeal, the plaintiff raises a number of claims regarding the court’s order prohibiting the release of a copy of the 2012 evaluation. We conclude that the postjudgment order at issue is not a final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")

AC40540 - Riccio v. Riccio ("The plaintiff, James Riccio, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the defendant, Lisa Riccio. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in making its financial orders because, in their entirety, they favored the defendant; (2) erred in applying the present division method of valuation to the distribution of the parties’ defined benefit plans; and (3) erred in its treatment of the plaintiff’s pay-status pension and the defendant’s nonpay-status pension. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38711 - Taylor v. Taylor ("The plaintiff, James Taylor, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his petition for visitation filed pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-59. Although the plaintiff raises multiple claims on appeal, only one merits discussion—namely, his contention that the court improperly determined that he had not satisfied his burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the denial of visitation would cause real and substantial harm to the minor child. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3109

AC40164 - Abrams v. PH Architects, LLC ("This appeal arises out of a dispute between a homeowner and the architectural firm and general contractor that he hired to design and perform substantial renovations to his home and surrounding property in Greenwich. The plaintiff, Marc Abrams, appeals, following a trial to the court, from the judgment rendered against him on his complaint and on the counterclaims of the defendants, PH Architects, LLC (PH), and V.A.S. Construction, Inc. (VAS). The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) failed to enforce provisions in his contracts with VAS and PH related to the processing of change orders and invoices; (2) failed to find that VAS had breached a separate contract governing the construction of a stone wall and fence on the property; (3) failed to enforce provisions in his contract with PH pursuant to which PH agreed to provide contract administration services; (4) failed to conclude that PH was liable for professional negligence because it had breached the professional standard of care for architects; and (5) made clearly erroneous factual findings with respect to a ‘punch list’ that was prepared on behalf of the plaintiff by a third party. We are not persuaded by the plaintiff’s claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC39617 - National Waste Associates, LLC v. Scharf ("The plaintiff, National Waste Associates, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered, in part, in favor of the defendants, Danielle Scharf, Carl Slusarczyk, Waste Harmonics, LLC (Waste Harmonics), and Omega Waste Management, Inc. (Omega). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the plaintiff could not prevail on its unjust enrichment claims, (2) a nonsolicitation provision in agreements between the plaintiff and its former employees was unenforceable as to its prospective customers, and (3) General Statutes § 35-57 (a) bars its claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Attorney Discipline Supreme Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3106

SC20059 - D'Attilo v. Statewide Grievance Committee ("The plaintiffs, Daniel Jacob D'Attilo, Cathy M. D'Attilo, and Domenic D'Attilo, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the present action, which was brought against the defendants, the Statewide Grievance Committee, the Fairfield Grievance Panel (Fairfield panel), and the Stamford-Norwalk Grievance Panel (Stamford panel), seeking a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief in challenging their handling of the plaintiffs' grievance complaints against seven attorneys. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that they were statutorily and classically aggrieved by certain decisions of those local panels dismissing their grievance complaints against five of those attorneys, and by certain other actions of the Statewide Grievance Committee with respect to the proceedings against the other two. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the present action for lack of standing.")


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3104

SC19780 - Eubanks v. Commissioner of Correction ("The respondent claims that the Appellate Court improperly reached the merits of the petitioner’s claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to certain portions of the prior testimony of Tanika McCotter on the basis that those portions of her testimony constituted double hearsay. Eubanks v.Commissioner of Correction, 166 Conn. App. 1, 22, 140 A.3d 402 (2016). The respondent contends that because the petitioner raised this argument for the first time on appeal, the petitioner’s claim is unreviewable. The petitioner responds that the Appellate Court properly addressed the double hearsay issue and reasserts the alternative ground for affirmance that he raised in the Appellate Court…Accordingly, we agree with the respondent that the Appellate Court improperly reached the merits of the petitioner’s claim. For the same reason, we reject the petitioner’s alternative ground for affirmance. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Workers' Compensation Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3105

SC19755 - Callaghan v. Car Parts International, LLC ("In this appeal from the Compensation Review Board, we consider the extent of an employer’s right to a credit against its obligation to pay workers’ compensation benefits for an injured employee when that employee has recovered damages from a third- party tortfeasor who caused the employee’s injuries. When an employee is injured in a work related accident, the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., bars the employee from bringing an action for damages against the employer but, also, requires employers to pay certain benefits to the injured employee. These benefits can include covering the employee’s medical expenses or providing compensation for disabilities resulting from the injury. See General Statutes § 31-275 (4).")


Connecticut Law Journal - July 24, 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3103

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 4, for July 24, 2018 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 329: Connecticut Reports (Pages 484 - 553)
  • Volume 329: Orders (Pages 914 - 914)
  • Volume 329: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 183: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 496 - 724)
  • Volume 183: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3102

SC19370 - State v. Roszkowski (Murder; capital felony; criminal possession of firearm; death sentence; "Following a jury trial, the defendant, Richard S. Roszkowski, was convicted of three counts of murder, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), for the 2006 murders of Thomas Gaudet, Holly Flannery (Flannery), and Kylie Flannery (Kylie); one count of capital felony, in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-54b (7), for the coincident murders of Gaudet and Flannery; a second count of capital felony, in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-54b (8), for the murder of nine year old Kylie; and one count of criminal possession of a firearm, in violation of General Statutes (Supp. 2006) § 53a-217 (a) (1). In 2014, the defendant was sentenced to death for his second capital felony conviction. On appeal, the defendant contends that he should not have been subjected to a penalty phase hearing because (1) the imposition of capital punishment became unconstitutional in Connecticut following the legislature's prospective repeal of the death penalty in 2012; see Public Acts 2012, No. 12-5 (P.A. 12-5); and (2) the trial court improperly denied his request for a competency evaluation. He further contends that the trial court improperly merged his three murder convictions with the corresponding capital felony convictions. We conclude that the defendant's penalty phase challenges must be dismissed as either moot or unripe. We agree, however, that the defendant's murder convictions should have been vacated rather than merged. Accordingly, we dismiss in part the defendant's appeal and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Declaratory Judgment Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3101

SC19923 - Mendillo v. Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLP ("In this appeal, we consider whether the Superior Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action brought as a collateral attack on a judgment of the Appellate Court concerning the plaintiff, George E. Mendillo. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his declaratory judgment action against the defendants, the law firm of Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLP (law firm), and the Connecticut Appellate Court. On appeal, the plaintiff, who is an attorney, claims that the trial court improperly concluded that his challenge to the Appellate Court’s interpretation of rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in Sowell v. DiCara, 161 Conn. App. 102, 127 A.3d 356, cert. denied, 320 Conn. 909, 128 A.3d 953 (2015), was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We, however, do not reach the sovereign immunity issues raised by the plaintiff because we agree with the defendants’ alternative jurisdictional argument, and conclude that the plaintiff’s collateral attack on Sowell in this declaratory judgment action is nonjusticiable under Valvo v. Freedom of Information Commission, 294 Conn. 534, 985 A.2d 1052 (2010). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court")


Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3099

AC39966 - Hilario's Truck Center, LLC v. Rinaldi ("The principal issue in this appeal is whether a company that provided automobile towing services to an insured motorist has standing as a third-party beneficiary to bring a direct breach of contract action against the insurance company that provided automobile liability coverage to the insured. We conclude, under the circumstances of this case, that the company is not an intended third-party beneficiary of the insurance contract and therefore lacks standing to bring a direct action against the insurer.")


Landlord / Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3100

AC39847 - Magee Avenue, LLC v. Lima Ceramic Tile, LLC ("The plaintiff, Magee Avenue, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Moufid Makhraz, on the plaintiff’s complaint alleging two counts of breach of contract and one count of unjust enrichment. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) rendered summary judgment because the defendant’s affidavit in support of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was untimely and insufficient; (2) permitted and considered the defendant’s testimony during the hearing on the motion; and (3) permitted the defendant to amend orally his motion for summary judgment to include all counts when the written motion only sought relief from the two counts of breach of contract. We agree with the plaintiff’s claims and reverse the judgment.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3094

AC39171 - State v. Ayala (Risk of injury to child; sexual assault in fourth degree; "The defendant, Walter Bobby Ayala, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A), and one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to disclose redacted portions of the victim’s mental health records following the court’s in camera review of the records pursuant to State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166, 471 A.2d 949 (1984), thereby violating his sixth and fourteenth amendment right to confrontation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40433 - State v. Jackson (Murder; conspiracy to commit murder; assault in first degree; "The defendant, Raashon Jackson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), one count of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a- 48 (a) and 53a-54a (a), and four counts of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a- 59 (a) (5). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court: (1) abused its discretion and deprived him of his rights to a fair trial and to present a defense when it denied his motion to preclude the testimony of the state’s belatedly disclosed expert witness and refused to afford him a continuance to retain his own expert, (2) abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of the state’s expert without conducting a Porter hearing, (3) abused its discretion and deprived him of his right to present a defense when it excluded exculpatory evidence in the form of his investigator’s testimony, (4) deprived him of his right to present a defense when it excluded exculpatory evidence regarding the discovery of a gun used in the crimes, and (5) abused its discretion in admitting certain consciousness of guilt evidence and instructing the jury as to that evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40125 - State v. Rogers (Murder; conspiracy to commit murder; assault in first degree; "The defendant, Roderick Rogers, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a consolidated jury trial, of one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), one count of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-54a (a), and four counts of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5). On appeal, he claims that the trial court improperly (1) precluded the introduction of evidence that one of the firearms used in the shooting of the victims was eventually found in the possession of a third party, (2) excluded evidence of a text message conversation he claims was relevant to third-party culpability in violation of his right to present a defense pursuant to the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the federal constitution, and (3) admitted into evidence maps depicting the location of cell phones, and related testimony, without first conducting a Porter hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3097

AC40535 - Barker v. All Roofs by Dominic (Workers' compensation; "The defendant, the city of Bridgeport (city),appeals from the decision of the Compensation Review Board (board) affirming the finding and order of the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner for the Third District (commissioner) holding that the city was the principal employer of the plaintiff Christopher Barker when he suffered a compensable injury while working for an uninsured subcontractor of the city on city property, and thus that the city was liable, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-291, for all workers’ compensation benefits3 due to him in connection with that injury. The city claims that the board erred in affirming the decision of the commissioner that the city was liable to the plaintiff as his principal employer because (1) § 31-291 does not apply to governmental entities and (2) even if § 31-291, in theory, can apply to a municipality, it does not impose principal employer liability on the city in this case because one fact essential to establishing such liability—that the work being performed by the plaintiff when he was injured was a part or process of the city’s trade or business—has not been satisfied. We affirm the decision of the board.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3098

AC39462 - Gaskin v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas corpus; "It has been usual for trial judges, when instructing jurors on how to weigh the credibility of witnesses, to tell them to consider whether the witness has an interest of whatever sort in the outcome of the trial that might influence or color the witness’ testimony. In the petitioner’s criminal trial, however, the jury never received important evidence of a cooperating witness’ interest in the outcome. This appeal requires us to examine a situation where a necessary cooperating witness, the only one who put the defendant at the crime scene with the likely murder weapon in his hand, falsely denied before the jury any promise from the state in exchange for his testimony and such falsity was not disclosed to the jury, but the prosecutor argued in summation to the jury that the witness had ‘‘everything to lose, nothing to gain,’’ by giving statements to the police and testifying. We hold this scenario to be antithetical to due process under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution.

The petitioner, Christopher Gaskin, filed this appeal following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court: (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal; (2) erred in finding that the petitioner’s due process claim was procedurally defaulted; and (3) in addressing the merits, erred in finding that the state did not deprive the petitioner of his due process rights when it did not correct a witness’ known false testimony at the underlying criminal trial. We agree with all of the petitioner’s claims as they pertain to his underlying convictions of murder and conspiracy to commit murder under General Statutes §§ 53a-54 and 53a-48, respectively. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case to the habeas court with instruction to render judgment granting the peti- tion for a writ of habeas corpus, vacating the petitioner’s underlying convictions of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, and ordering a new trial on those charges. We affirm the judgment as to the petitioner’s underlying conviction of tampering with a witness under General Statutes § 53a-151.")

AC39802 - Mercado v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas corpus; ineffective assistance of trial counsel; "The petitioner, Marcos Mercado, appeals from the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly rejected his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Specifically, the petitioner claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing: (1) to take appropriate measures at trial to preclude the introduction of evidence of the petitioner’s prior commission of crimes; (2) to take appropriate measures to preclude, or failing to call an expert to challenge, the state’s introduction of firearms and ballistics evidence; and (3) to adequately preserve an issue for appellate review. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3096

AC39163 - Davis v. Property Owners Assn. at Moodus Lake Shores, Inc. ("The plaintiffs . . . appeal from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant Property Owners Association at Moodus Lake Shores, Inc. The plaintiffs claim on appeal that the court erred by (1) denying their motions in limine seeking to preclude the defendants' experts from testifying and (2) not finding that the plaintiffs had an easement by implication over the defendants' property. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3095

SC19730 - Kutcha v. Arisian (Zoning; "'The outdoor sign or symbol is a venerable medium for expressing political, social and commercial ideas.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 501, 101 S. Ct. 2882, 69 L. Ed. 2d 800 (1981). The primary issue we must resolve in this case is whether General Statutes § 8-2, which authorizes a municipality's zoning commission to regulate the height, size, and location of 'advertising signs and billboards,' permits a municipality to regulate signs erected on residential property that disparage a commercial vendor.

The plaintiff, the zoning enforcement officer for the city of Milford, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying the plaintiff's request for permanent injunctions ordering the defendant homeowner . . . to remove signs on her property that were not in compliance with city zoning regulations and precluding the defendant from occupying the property until she obtained certain certificates required after home improvements had been made to her residence. We conclude that the defendant's signs are not 'advertising signs,' and, accordingly, the trial court properly concluded that municipal regulation of such signs is outside the scope of the authority granted under § 8-2. We further conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to issue an injunction precluding the defendant from occupying the subject premises.")


1 2 3