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.
Monday, March 6th
- Hartford Law Library is closed from 1:45 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.
Tuesday, March 7th
- Middletown Law Library is closed.
- Rockville Law Library opens at 1:30 p.m.
Wednesday, March 8th
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- New London Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library opens at 1:30 p.m.
Thursday, March 9th
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
Friday, March 10th
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- New Britain Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library opens at 12:30 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 34, for February 28, 2023 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 238 - 287)
- Volume 346: Orders (Pages 908 - 909)
- Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 217: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 687 - 808)
- Volume 217: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Supreme Court Pending Cases
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
AC45693 - In re Eric M. ("The respondent father, Eric S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered for the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights to his minor son, Eric M. (Eric), on the grounds that he failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) and that there is no ongoing parent-child relationship pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (3) (D). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the interference exception did not apply to preclude the petitioner from relying on the no ongoing parent-child relationship ground for termination and (2) found that the respondent had not rehabilitated such that he could assume a responsible position in the life of the child. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC45551 - In re Isabella Q. ("The respondent father, Michael Q., 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, Isabella Q. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly concluded that the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that (1) pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (1), the respondent was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services, (2) the respondent failed to rehabilitate in accordance with § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i), and (3) termination of the respondent's parental rights was in Isabella's best interests pursuant to § 17a-112 (j) (2). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
SC20588 - State v. King (“On appeal before this court, the defendant claims that the
Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the elements of Florida’s driving
under the influence statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 316.193, which he previously had
been convicted of violating twice, were substantially the same as the elements
of § 14-227a (a) for enhancement purposes under § 14-227a (g) because, he
contends, the phrase ‘actual physical control’ under § 316.193 (1) criminalizes
a broader range of conduct than does the term ‘operating’ under § 14-227a (a).
To decide this question, we first must address an issue we have not confronted
before: the meaning of the phrase in § 14- 227a (g) that provides an
enhancement for ‘any offense the essential elements of which are determined by
the court to be substantially the same as subdivision (1) or (2) of subsection
(a) of this section . . . .’ We conclude that this phrase means that the basic
and necessary parts of the out-of-state statute, including the actus reus, mens
rea, and causation, must be the same as the elements of § 14-227a (a) to a
considerable degree. Applying this definition to the claim at issue, we conclude
that the essential elements of § 14-227a (a) and § 316.193 are substantially
the same. Accordingly, we affirm the Appellate Court’s judgment.”)
AC42876 - Stanley v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas corpus; "The self-represented petitioner, Steven Keith Stanley, appeals, 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. Although the petitioner challenges the merits of the habeas court's denial of his petition, 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.")
AC44731 - Freidheim v. McLaughlin ("In this action concerning a dispute between the plaintiff, Stephen C. Freidheim, and the defendant adjoining landowners, Edward F. McLaughlin, in his capacity as trustee for the Edward F. McLaughlin Revocable Trust (trust), and Patricia Ann McLaughlin, regarding an alleged view easement, the plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants on all five counts of the plaintiff's complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after determining that the plaintiff had established the existence of a view easement that was being obstructed by the defendants, (2) misapplied the scope of the view easement restrictions when it determined that those restrictions applied only to a fence or hedge along the boundary line between the parties' properties, (3) determined that the plaintiff's claim that a 'pool changing/utility outbuilding' (pool house) on the defendants' property violates an outbuilding restriction of the view easement was barred by the statute of limitations in General Statutes § 52-575a and (4) rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to count three of the complaint, which alleges a violation of General Statutes § 52-570 for malicious planting of hedges that exceed a five foot height restriction of the view easement, and as to count four, which seeks injunctive
relief pursuant to General Statutes § 52-480 related to the malicious planting
of the hedges. We affirm the judgment only with respect to the court's
determination that a view easement exists. We reverse the summary judgment
rendered in favor of the defendants in all other respects and remand the case
for further proceedings.")
AC45330 - Prime Management, LLC v. Arthur ("The defendant Jessica Arthur appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her (1) motion to open a default judgment and (2) motion to dismiss the summary process action filed by the plaintiff, Prime Management, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court incorrectly interpreted Executive Order No. 12D, issued by Governor Ned Lamont on June 30, 2021, in concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the summary process action. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
AC45200 - 9 Pettipaug, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission ("In this certified zoning appeal, we consider whether a zoning body has complied with the statutory notice requirement in General Statutes § 8-3 (d) if it published notice in a newspaper that had no subscribers in the relevant municipality but was available on the Internet. The defendant, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Borough of Fenwick, appeals from the summary judgment of the Superior Court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, 9 Pettipaug, LLC, and Eniotna, LLP, holding that the defendant's zoning amendment was invalid because the defendant failed to comply with the applicable statutory notice requirement. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the defendant failed to satisfy the 'substantial circulation' component of the notice requirement in § 8-3 (d), and (2) shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")
AC45568- Houghtaling v. Benevides ("The plaintiff, Aurora Houghtaling, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant Jakub Micengendler in this tort action, commenced pursuant to General Statutes § 22-357, commonly known as the dog bite statute. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in rendering summary judgment because the underlying facts do not support the court's conclusion that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiff was a "keeper" of the dog that allegedly caused her to sustain an injury, thus precluding her from recovery pursuant to § 22-357. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
The Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research has issued the following new reports:
Early Voting - 2023-R-0018 - Describes early voting, including the types of early voting available in states that offer it and the
length of their early voting period. This updates OLR Report
2021-R-0098.
State and Federal Laws on Ammunition Record-keeping Requirements - 2023-R-0033 - Are there any state or federal laws requiring ammunition sellers to keep records of ammunition
sales?
Use of Surveillance Cameras in Residential Areas - 2023-R-0068 - What are the laws that govern the use of surveillance cameras in residential areas? (This report
updates OLR Report
2009-R-0359.)
AC45269 - In re K. M. ("The respondent father, Michael M., appeals from the judgments of the trial court in which the court denied in part the respondent's motion for supplemental orders regarding therapeutic visitation, denied the respondent's motion to enforce compliance with court orders, and granted the motion of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, to suspend the respondent's visitation with his minor children, A and B. The respondent's sole claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in vacating prior visitation orders and entering new visitation orders. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 33, for February 21, 2023 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 181 - 238)
- Volume 346: Orders (Pages 906 - 908)
- Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 217: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 647 - 687)
- Volume 217: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 904)
- Volume 217: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
SC20617 - Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pasiak ("This case comes to us for the second time following lengthy litigation of a declaratory judgment action brought by the plaintiffs, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, against the defendant Jeffrey S. Pasiak. The action concerned whether the plaintiffs were obligated to indemnify the defendant, a business owner, under a personal umbrella insurance policy for liability arising from his false imprisonment of his company's employee at her workplace.
....
"The trial court properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard at the trial de novo to determine the factual question of whether the plaintiffs established that the business pursuits exclusion of the umbrella insurance policy barred coverage. The defendant's argument to the contrary conflates the legal standard for construction of a policy exclusion and the burden of proof to be applied in a declaratory judgment action to determine whether, as a factual matter, a policy exclusion applies.")
SC20660 - Strazza Building & Construction, Inc. v. Harris ("In Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc., 332 Conn. 67, 87, 208 A.3d 1223 (2019), this court held that, when a property owner and a general contractor have resolved disputes arising from a construction project by way of binding arbitration, there arises a rebuttable presumption that the general contractor and its subcontractors are in privity for purposes of res judicata in any subsequent litigation. In this certified appeal, we must determine whether the Appellate Court correctly applied Girolametti to the facts of the present case, in which a general contractor had sued
the property owner to foreclose two mechanic's liens it served on the owner,
claiming unpaid balances for labor and materials stemming from renovations it
began on the owner's home. In particular, we consider whether the Appellate
Court properly upheld the trial court's denial of the property owner's motion
for summary judgment, declining to give preclusive effect to the findings of the
trial court in a prior action between the owner and one of the general contractor's
subcontractors. We agree with the Appellate Court that the presumption of
privity that we held to apply in Girolametti does not apply in the
present case, in which a property owner seeks to bind a general contractor to a
prior judgment against a subcontractor. We also agree that the trial court
correctly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment because there
remains an issue of material fact as to whether the doctrine of res judicata
applies to the facts of this case.
. . . The judgment of the Appellate Court
is affirmed.")
AC44949 - Herrera v. Meadow Hill, Inc. ("The plaintiff, Byron Herrera, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Meadow Hill, Inc. (Meadow Hill), and Imagineers, LLC, in this premises liability action arising out of the plaintiff's alleged slip and fall on ice on property possessed and controlled by the defendants.On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants because the documents submitted in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment did not eliminate all questions of material fact about (1) whether they had a reasonable time to remediate the snowy or icy condition prior to the plaintiff's fall, or (2) whether, if they did have a reasonable time to remediate that condition before the plaintiff's fall, they failed to do so or did so negligently. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC45132 - Foster v.
Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court
incorrectly concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective
assistance by failing (1) to advise the petitioner to reject the plea offer
because it was effectively a life sentence, (2) to advise the petitioner to
reject the plea offer because he would lose his right to appeal the trial
court’s determination that the petitioner was competent to stand trial, and (3)
to preserve the petitioner’s right to appeal from the trial court’s determination
that the petitioner was competent to stand trial. We affirm the judgment of the
habeas court.”)
AC44942 - Onyilogwu v. Onyilogwu (Dissolution of marriage; alimony; whether trial court abused its discretion in making excessive award of alimony; "The plaintiff, Kenechukwu Onyilogwu, appeals from the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to the defendant, Catherine I. Onyilogwu. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the court's financial orders and claims that the court abused its discretion in making an excessive award of alimony. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment as to the financial orders.")
Thursday, February 16th
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
Friday, February 17th
- Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library opens at 1:45 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m. and closes at 4:30 p.m.
Monday, February 20th
- All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed in observance of the holiday.
Tuesday, February 21st
- Rockville Law Library is closed.
- Waterbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m.
Wednesday, February 22nd
- Hartford Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 3:45 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
Thursday, February 23rd
- Hartford Law Library is closed.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- New Haven Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
Friday, February 24th
- Hartford Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- New London Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 32, for February 14, 2023 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 346: Connecticut Reports (Pages 33 - 181)
- Volume 346: Orders (Pages 906 - 906)
- Volume 346: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 217: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 553 - 647)
- Volume 217: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 906)
- Volume 217: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
SC20599 - Gershon v. Back (Dissolution of Marriage; Choice of Law; Whether New York Law is Substantive Rather Than Procedural for Choice-of-Law Purposes When Law Would Require Litigant Seeking Postjudgment Relief in Marital Dissolution Case to File Plenary Action Rather Than Motion to Open Dissolution Judgment; "New York's so-called "plenary action rule" requires a party seeking to modify or vacate a separation agreement that survives a final judgment of divorce to file a plenary action on the contract instead of a motion to open, modify or vacate the divorce judgment. This certified appeal requires us to determine whether New York's plenary action rule is procedural or substantive for choice of law purposes. The trial court concluded that the rule was substantive and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the motion, filed by the plaintiff, Elana Gerson, to open and set aside the final judgment of divorce. The Appellate Court agreed that the New York rule was substantive but disagreed that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, concluded that the plaintiff's motion should have been denied instead of dismissed. Gershon v. Back, 201 Conn. App. 225, 253–54, 242 A.3d 481 (2020). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")