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.

Connecticut Law Journal - October 31, 2023

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5649

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 18, for October 31, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 348: Orders (Pages 916 - 917)
  • Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 222: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 141 - 261)
  • Volume 222: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 904)
  • Volume 222: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5647

AC45498 - International Assn. of EMTs & Paramedics, Local R1-701 v. Bristol Hospital EMS, LLC (“The defendant, Bristol Hospital EMS, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court granting the motion of the plaintiff, International Association of EMTs and Paramedics, Local R1-701, to enforce a prior judgment of the court confirming the arbitration award to reinstate an employee of the defendant. The defendant claims the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to require that medical authorization be given to the employee and (2) improperly awarded back pay and attorney’s fees when those issues were not properly before it. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.”)

Contract Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5644

AC45118 - Kennynick, LLC v. Standard Petroleum Co. (“The plaintiff Kennynick, LLC, appeals, and the defendant, Standard Petroleum Company, cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court in this dispute between a wholesale gasoline distributor and a retail gasoline dealer. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) calculated the applicable time period for which it awarded prejudgment interest, (2) concluded that the plaintiff had not established violations of either the Connecticut Petroleum Franchise Act (CPFA), General Statutes § 42-133j et seq., or the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and (3) permitted the defendant to offer evidence to support unpleaded special defenses of offset or recoupment. In its cross appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) construed the contract between the parties to require it to pass along a federal tax credit to the plaintiff and (2) denied its special defenses of waiver and voluntary payment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC45740 - Cokic v. Fiore Powersports, LLC (“The plaintiff, Dejan Robert Cokic, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding $2360.89 in attorney’s fees to the defendant Village Marina, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the court abused its discretion in awarding the defendant attorney’s fees on the basis of its conclusion that the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant were brought without color and in bad faith. We agree and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)

Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5645

AC45308 - Walker v. Walker (Dissolution of Marriage, "On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) failed to consider all of the statutory criteria set forth in General Statutes § 46b-81(c) in its division of the marital property and (2) applied an unreasonable amount of weight to the defendant’s fault in the breakdown of the marriage in fashioning its orders distributing the marital property and awarding alimony. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court."

Land Use Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5642

AC45082 - Kerlin v. Planning & Zoning Commission ("The plaintiff, Norma Kerlin, appeals from the judgments of the trial court dismissing her appeals from (1) the decision of the defendant Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Greenwich (board), in which the board upheld the decision of the defendant Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Greenwich (commission) to approve an application for a subdivision and (2) the decision of the commission to approve two applications for coastal area management (CAM) site plans. The subdivision application and the two CAM applications were submitted to the commission by the defendant Palmer Island, LLC (applicant). The plaintiff, who lives near the subject property, claims that the court erred (1) in upholding the commission's approval of the CAM site plan applications, misinterpreting a regulation and misapplying it to the facts before it, and (2) in upholding the two lot subdivision and the CAM site plan application approvals in the absence of evidence that the board or commission considered the impacts of the right-of-way on coastal resources. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5643

AC45104 - State v. Thomas S. (Violation of criminal protective order; no specific unanimity instructions given to jury; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the requisite intent to violate the protective order. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

Law Library Hours: October 25th - November 3rd

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5640

Wednesday, October 25th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.

Thursday, October 26th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Friday, October 27th

  • Danbury Law Library is closed.
  • New London Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library opens at 10:30 and is closed from 12:45 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library opens at 1:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 1:00 p.m.

Monday, October 30th

  • Bridgeport Law Library closes at 11:30 a.m.
  • Danbury Law Library is closed.
  • Hartford Law Library is closed from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library is closed from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • New London Law Library closes at 11:30 a.m.
  • Putnam Law Library closes at 11:30 a.m.
  • Rockville Law Library closes at 12:30 p.m.
  • Stamford Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, October 31st

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, November 1st

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Stamford Law Library will open at 10:00 a.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Thursday, November 2nd

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Friday, November 3rd

  • Danbury Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library closes at 11:30 a.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Connecticut Law Journal - October 24, 2023

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5639

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 17, for October 24, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 251 - 264)
  • Volume 348: Orders (Pages 913 - 916)
  • Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 222: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 141)
  • Volume 222: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 903)
  • Volume 222: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

New OLR Reports

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5638

The Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has recently added the following new reports to their website:

Eviction Process and Recent Related Changes - 2023-R-0220 - Describes the eviction process and provides (1) a summary of the governor’s COVID-19-related executive orders and (2) information on recent legislation impacting the process. This report updates OLR Report 2021-R-0189.

Protection Against Rent Increases - 2023-R-0247 - How does state law protect tenants against excessive rent increases? Are there specific protections for seniors or tenants with disabilities? This report updates OLR Report 2022-R-0115.

Required Home Inspections Before Residential Home Sales - 2023-R-0228 - Identifies (1) bills in other states similar to Massachusetts’s proposed Senate Bill 197 (2023), which regulates the right to inspections in residential home sales, and (2) any states that require home inspections prior to completing a residential home sale.

Removal of Condominium Board Members - 2023-R-0216 - Summarizes the process to remove condominium board members under Connecticut’s Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA).

Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5637

AC45210 - Rek v. Pettit ("This appeal concerns the propriety of the December 15, 2021 judgment of the trial court issuing certain orders regarding visitation between the defendants, Kirk Pettit and Charlotte Pettit, and Caleb, a minor child. On appeal, the plaintiffs, Peter Rek and Carisa Rek, the legal guardians of Caleb, claim that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue those orders, (2) improperly denied their motion to open and vacate the December 15, 2021 judgment, and (3) improperly denied their motion for a mistrial due to the court's failure to render judgment in accordance with General Statutes § 51-183b.

While this appeal was pending, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion to terminate visitation between the defendants and Caleb. When no appeal was taken from that judgment, this court invited the parties to file supplemental briefs on the issue of whether the present appeal is moot. Having considered that issue of subject matter jurisdiction in light of the foregoing, we conclude that the plaintiffs' appeal is moot and dismiss the appeal.")

Freedom of Information Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5636

AC452587 - City of Bridgeport v. Freedom of Information Commission ("The plaintiffs disagree with the commission’s claims and contend that the judgment may be affirmed on the alternative grounds that the commission (1) violated § 1-206 (b) (2) by failing to seek leave of the commission before scheduling a hearing on Daley’s complaint, (2) should have dismissed the appeal pursuant to § 1-206 (b) (4), (3) improperly decided issues not raised in Daley’s complaint, and (4) improperly concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of establishing that certain information in the records was exempt from disclosure pursuant to General Statutes § 1-210. We agree with the commission’s first and third claims and reject the plaintiffs’ alternative grounds for affirming the judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.")

Workers’ Compensation Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5634

AC45341 - Dusto v. Rogers Corp. (“The plaintiff, Lana Kelly, acting in her capacity as executor of the estates of Harold Dusto and his wife, Anita Dusto,1 appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of Harold Dusto’s employer, Rogers Corporation (Rogers), and the judgment of dismissal rendered in favor of Special Electric Company, Inc. (Special Electric), which sold asbestos materials to Rogers. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) rendered summary judgment in favor of Rogers on the ground that her claims against Rogers were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., and (2) dismissed her claims against Special Electric for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We agree with the plaintiff that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether her claims against Rogers satisfied the substantial certainty exception to the exclusivity provision of the act, and we therefore reverse the summary judgment rendered in favor of Rogers. We affirm the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against Special Electric.”)

  • AC45341 - Dusto v. Rogers Corp. — Concurrence & Dissent

Administrative Appeal Supreme Court Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5633

SC20733 - Middlebury v. Fraternal Order of Police, Middlebury Lodge No 34. (“In this certified appeal, the plaintiff, the town of Middlebury (town), challenges the trial court’s dismissal of the town’s administrative appeal from the decision of the labor board concluding that the town violated MERA by unilaterally changing the town’s past practice of including extra duty pay in the calculation of pension benefits for members of the named defendant, Fraternal Order of Police, Middlebury Lodge No. 34 (union). The town claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the labor board did not act unreasonably, illegally, arbitrarily, or in abuse of its discretion when it declined to apply the ‘‘contract coverage’’ standard, as adopted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in MV Transportation, Inc., Case No. 28-CA173726, 368 N.L.R.B. No. 66, slip op., pp. 1–2, 9–11 (September 10, 2019), and instead applied the clear and unmistakable waiver standard to the union’s claim that the town’s unilateral change to its pension plan constituted a refusal to bargain collectively in good faith in violation of MERA. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court..”)

Law Library Hours: October 18th - October 27th

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5632

Wednesday, October 18th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 4:00 p.m.
  • Hartford Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Thursday, October 19th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Hartford Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 3:45 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.

Friday, October 20th

  • Danbury Law Library is closed.
  • Hartford Law Library is closed.
  • New Haven Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed from 12:45 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.

Monday, October 23rd

  • Danbury Law Library is closed.
  • Middletown Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library opens at 2:00 p.m.

Tuesday, October 24th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, October 25th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, October 26th

  • Danbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Friday, October 27th

  • Danbury Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library opens at 10:30 and is closed from 12:45 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.
  • Waterbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 1:00 p.m.

Connecticut Law Journal - October 17, 2023

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5631

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 16, for October 17, 2023 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 152 - 250)
  • Volume 348: Orders (Pages 909 - 913)
  • Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 221: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 827 - 885)
  • Volume 221: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 904)
  • Volume 221: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices

Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Carey, Sean

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5630

AC46336 - In re Na-Ki- J. (“The respondent mother, Nakia M., appeals from the judgments of the trial court, rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights with respect to her children, N, M, and T. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) violated her due process rights to be present and to testify at her termination of parental rights trial when it denied her request for a continuance, and (2) abused its discretion in denying her request for a continuance. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

Employment Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Oumano, Emily

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5628

SC20677 - Ahmed v. Oak Management Corp. (“This appeal arises under highly unusual, perhaps unprecedented, circumstances, involving the application of the ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ in an arbitral proceeding but implicates settled law on the limits of judicial review of arbitral awards. The plaintiff, Iftikar Ahmed, appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his application to vacate an arbitration award rendered in favor of the defendant, Oak Management Corporation (Oak), and granting Oak’s motion to confirm the award. Ahmed contends that the trial court erroneously declined to vacate the award because the arbitrator had deprived him of the full and fair hearing to which he was entitled, in violation of governing law, public policy, and the parties’ arbitration agreement. Specifically, Ahmed contends that the arbitrator improperly applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to prevent him from asserting counterclaims or defenses, contesting Oak’s allegations, and viewing the evidence against him. After considering the grounds he has raised for vacating the award, we conclude that, notwithstanding the gravity of the arbitrator’s rulings, Ahmed has not satisfied any of the legal standards required for reversal of the judgment. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.”)


1 2 Next Last