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.
AC44120 - In re November H. (Connecticut General Statute § 17a-112 (j) (3); whether father lacked normal and healthy parent-child bond with child; “On appeal, the respondent claims that (1) the court made internally inconsistent statements regarding his parent-child relationship with November, (2) there was insufficient evidence supporting the court’s determination that he failed to sufficiently rehabilitate, (3) as a matter of law, the court, in terminating his parental rights, improperly relied on its finding that additional time was necessary for him and November to develop a ‘‘normal and healthy’’ parent-child relationship when the petitioner and November’s mother, Natachia G., interfered with his ability to develop such a relationship, and (4) the court improperly compared him to November’s foster parent in the adjudicatory part of its decision. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
SC20106 - State v. Angel M. (Sentencing; Whether Defendant Penalized for Maintaining his Innocence at Sentencing Hearing; Whether Consideration of Defendant's Refusal to Admit Guilt Violates Right Against Self-Incrimination. "Following a jury trial, the defendant, Angel M., was convicted of sexually assaulting the twelve year old daughter of his romantic partner and sentenced to a total effective prison term of thirty-three years. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, among other things, that the trial court had violated his right to due process at sentencing by penalizing him for refusing to apologize for his criminal misconduct. See State v. Angel M., 180 Conn. App. 250,253, 286, 183 A.3d 636 (2018). According to the defendant, who maintained his innocence both at trial and at the time of sentencing, the trial court’s enhancement of his sentence for that reason was fundamentally unfair because it contravened his constitutional right against self-incrimination insofar as any such apology necessarily would have required him to admit guilt. See id., 286–88. The Appellate Court rejected the defendant’s claim, concluding that the record did not support his contention that the trial court had increased his sentence because of his unwillingness to issue an apology to the victims; see id., 290–91; and we granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal. See State v. Angel M., 328 Conn. 931, 182 A.3d 1192 (2018). We agree with the Appellate Court and, accordingly, affirm its judgment.")
AC42140 - Figueroa v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred by
concluding that (1) he failed to sustain his burden of establishing prejudice
caused by his trial counsel’s failure to request an alibi instruction, (2) he failed
to sustain his burden of establishing prejudice caused by his appellate
counsel’s failure to argue on direct appeal that his constitutional right to a
trial by jury was violated, and (3) his claim that his constitutional right to
a trial by jury was violated was procedurally defaulted. We affirm the judgment
of the habeas court.”)
AC43027 - Wittman v. Intense Movers, Inc. (Corporate dissolution; breach of fiduciary duty; notice to purchase shares of company pursuant to statute (§ 33-900 (b)); motion to enforce settlement agreement; "The self-represented defendants, Alexander Leute and William R. Leute III, appeal from the judgment of the trial court enforcing a signed memorandum of understanding as supplemented by an unsigned settlement document with its attachments (jointly, settlement agreement) made between the defendants and the plaintiffs, Matthew Wittman and Carol Wittman, regarding the defendants' purchase of the plaintiffs' shares of stock in Intense Movers, Inc. (company). On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement because the defendants' ability to obtain third-party financing to fund the purchase of the plaintiffs' shares was a contingency of the settlement agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
The Connecticut Office of Legislative Research has recently published the following new reports:
Comparison of Property Tax Structures in Select States - 2020-R-0354 - provides a brief comparison of the property tax structures in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.
Judicial Selection Process - 2020-R-0322 - summarizes the judicial selection process. (This report expands and updates OLR Report 2001-R-0130.)
Nursing Home Transparency - 2020-R-0356 - describes provisions in PA 14-55, An Act Improving Transparency of Nursing Home Operations, concerning (1) cost reporting and (2) the Nursing Home Financial Advisory Committee.
Connecticut's Environmental Justice Law - 2020-R-0286 - summarizes Connecticut’s environmental justice law (CGS § 22a-20a). It updates OLR Report 2017-R-0316 to reflect changes made by PA 20-6, Sept. Sp. Sess..
Food Insecurity in Connecticut - 2020-R-0329 - provides general information on food insecurity nationally and in Connecticut and policy options to help residents obtain food during the COVID-19 pandemic that other states have implemented or may be considering.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 26, for December 29, 2020 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 335: Connecticut Reports (Pages 745 - 816)
- Volume 335: Orders (Pages 985 - 985)
- Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 202: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 44 - 54)
- Volume 202: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
- Notice Publishing Deadlines
AC42948 - LaPierre v. Mandell & Blau, M.D.'s, P.C. ("The plaintiff, Joseph H. LaPierre III, successor executor of the estate of Isabella LaPierre (decedent), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his action against the defendants, Mandell & Blau, M.D.'s, P.C., doing business as Open MRI of Connecticut, and physicians Alisa Siegfeld, Neal D. Barkoff and Richard Glisson, for lack of personal jurisdiction based on his failure to attach to his complaint an opinion letter from a similar health care provider as required by General Statutes § 52-190a. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in its determination because the complaint sounded in ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice, and therefore was outside the scope of § 52-190a.We are not persuaded and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 25, for December 22, 2020 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 335: Orders (Pages 982 - 984)
- Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 201: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 748 - 881)
- Volume 201: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 906 - 908)
- Volume 201: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Volume 202: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 44)
- Volume 202: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Supreme Court Pending Cases
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
- Notice Publishing Deadlines