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.
AC47443 - Ashe v. Yale University (“The
plaintiffs, Victor H. Ashe and Donald G. Glascoff, Jr., alumni of the
defendant, Yale University, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying
their motion for summary judgment, granting the defendant’s motion for summary
judgment, and dismissing their claim alleging ultra vires acts in violation of
the Connecticut Revised Nonstock Corporation Act (act), General Statutes §
33-1000 et seq. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1)
rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant because the court
incorrectly determined that the plaintiffs lack standing on the basis that they
are not third-party beneficiaries of the defendant’s charter, and (2) granted
the defendant’s motion to dismiss their ultra vires claim because the court
improperly determined that alumni are not members within the meaning of the act
and, thus, the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the claim. We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.”)
Friday, November 28
- Bridgeport Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
- New Britain Law Library is closed.
- New Haven Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
Monday, December 1
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
Tuesday, December 2
- Danbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
- Hartford Law Library closes at 4:15 p.m.
Thursday, December 4
- New London Law Library is closed.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
Friday, December 5
- Putnam Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
AC46815 - Ramos v. State ("The self-represented petitioner, Jose
Ramos, appeals from the judgment of the trial court claiming that it improperly denied his petition for a new
trial. The respondent, the state of Connecticut, argues,
inter alia, that the appeal should be dismissed due to
the petitioner’s failure to comply with the certification
requirement of General Statutes § 54-95 (a). We agree
with the respondent and, accordingly, dismiss the
appeal.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVII, No. 22, for November 25, 2025 is now available.
- Table of Contents
- Volume 353: Orders (Pages 922 - 926)
- Volume 353: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 236: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 428 - 527)
- Volume 236: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
AC48494 - State v. Antwon B. ("The defendant, Antwon B., appeals from
the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial,
of attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-59 (a) (1) and larceny in the third degree in violation of General
Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 53a-124 (a) (1). On appeal,
the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient
evidence to prove that he had committed the crimes of
attempt to commit assault in the first degree and larceny
in the third degree, and (2) prosecutorial impropriety
deprived him of a fair trial. We affirm the judgment of
conviction.")
AC47644 - Maner v. Commissioner of Correction (“He claims on appeal, inter alia, that (1) the court
improperly denied his freestanding constitutional claim, which asserted that
the police had illegally obtained records containing his historical cell site
location information (CSLI) in violation of his rights under the fourth
amendment to the United States constitution, (2) the 2016 amendments to General
Statutes § 54-47aa contained in Public Acts 2016, No. 16-148, § 1 (2016
amendments), which require the police to obtain a warrant based on probable
cause before obtaining historical CSLI, should apply retroactively in the
present case, (3) certain CSLI obtained by the police did not comply with
General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 54-47aa, and (4) the court incorrectly
concluded that any error in the admission of the petitioner’s CSLI was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt. For the reasons that follow, we reject the
petitioner’s claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)
AC47404 - Howard v. Commissioner of Correction (Alford doctrine; one count of murder; violation of
probation; “The petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) denied
her claim that she was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel and (2)
dismissed her claim that her guilty plea was involuntary. We disagree and,
accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)
Friday, November 21
- Bridgeport Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
- Hartford Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library closes at 1:30 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
Monday, November 24
- Danbury Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library closes from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Tuesday, November 25
- Danbury Law Library closes at 4:15 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:15 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
Wednesday, November 26
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library closes at 1:30 p.m.
- Hartford Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
Thursday, November 27
- All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed for the holiday.
Friday, November 28
- Bridgeport Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
- New Britain Law Library is closed.
- New Haven Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVII, No. 21, for November 18, 2025 is now available.
- Table of Contents
- Volume 353: Orders (Pages 921 - 922)
- Volume 353: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 236: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 357 - 427)
- Volume 236: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 905 - 905)
- Volume 236: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Supreme Court Pending Cases
AC47165, AC46635 - Stroll v. Pass (“This appeal concerns the administration of the trusts and estates of John J. Stroll, Sr., and Bettina Gloria Stroll, the parents of several parties to this probate dispute. In Docket No. AC 47165, the plaintiff, John J. Stroll, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court rendered in favor of the defendants, Bettina Gloria Stroll Pass (Betty), Joseph G. Stroll (Joseph), and Attorney Robert E. Grant. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) affirmed the order of the Probate Court removing him as the fiduciary of the parents’ trusts and estates, (2) imposed sanctions on him for violating his fiduciary duties, and (3) failed to appoint Joseph as a successor fiduciary. In Docket No. AC 46635, an appeal the plaintiff filed while the proceedings before the Superior Court remained pending, the plaintiff raises identical claims. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court in Docket No. AC 47165 and dismiss the appeal in Docket No. AC 46635 for lack of a final judgment.”)
AC46859 - State v. Daren S. ("The defendant, Daren S., appeals
from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a
jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation
of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (1), sexual assault in
the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-72a (a) (3), and unlawful restraint in the first degree in
violation of General Statutes § 53a-95. The defendant
claims that (1) the trial court improperly admitted evidence of uncharged sexual assaults of the victim, A, by
the defendant when she was a minor; (2) the court
improperly admitted expert testimony on delayed
reporting by victims of child sexual abuse because A
was an adult when the charged conduct occurred and
did not delay reporting that conduct; (3) the convictions
of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual assault
in the third degree amounted to multiple punishments
for the same act in violation of the guarantee against
double jeopardy set forth in the fifth amendment to
the United States constitution as applied to the states
through the fourteenth amendment; and (4) the conviction of unlawful restraint in the first degree cannot
stand because, consistent with our Supreme Court’s
holding in State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d
1092 (2008), the restraint used was merely incidental
to his commission of sexual assault in the first degree.
We reject the defendant’s claims and, accordingly,
affirm the judgment of the court.")
AC47825 - Bogda v. Bochenek (“The plaintiff, Robin
Bogda, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendering summary judgment
in favor of the defendant Brian Bochenek, executor of the estate of Barbara H.
Uterstaedt. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that, in misconstruing the term
‘‘indirect’’ claims, the court improperly determined (1) that the plaintiff
lacked standing and (2) there were no genuine issues of material fact that the
defendant did not breach the terms of the parties’ agreement to release each
other from any lawsuits and claims. We determine that the plaintiff has
standing and reverse the judgment of the trial court rendering summary judgment
in the defendant’s favor.”)
Thursday, November 13
- Torrington Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
Friday, November 14
- Danbury Law Library is closed from 12:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
Monday, November 17
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- Rockville Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, November 18
- Middletown Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
Wednesday, November 19
- Middletown Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
- New London Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library closes at 4:15 p.m.
Thursday, November 20
- Danbury Law Library is closed from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
- Stamford Law Library is closed from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library opens from 9:15 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Friday, November 21
- Bridgeport Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
- Hartford Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library closes at 1:30 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
The Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has recently published the following new reports on their website:
Connecticut's Credit Freeze Law - 2025-R-0145 - Summarizes the state’s credit freeze law. This report updates OLR Report 2015-R-0176.
Grace Period for Property Taxes - 2025-R-0162 - What is the grace period for property tax payments?
Gas-Powered Leaf Blower Restrictions - 2025-R-0139 - Describes (1) how Connecticut’s neighboring states and their municipalities regulate gas-powered leaf blowers, including bans, phase outs, or incentives to switch to electric, and (2) recent legislation regulating or incentivizing changes to alternative power sources. This report supplements OLR Report 2024-R-0177.
State Laws and Legislation Concerning the Upkeep of Veterans' Graves - 2025-R-0175 - Describes other states’ laws and legislation on maintaining veterans’ graves in non-veteran cemeteries.
Common-Law Marriage In Connecticut and Other States - 2025-R-0165 - Are common-law marriages recognized in Connecticut? (This report updates OLR Report 2013-R-0264.)
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVII, No. 20, for November 11, 2025 is now available.
- Table of Contents
- Volume 353: Connecticut Reports (Pages 666 - 667)
- Volume 353: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 236: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 269 - 357)
- Volume 236: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 904)
- Volume 236: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
AC47591 - Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc. ("The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG, brought this action against the defendants, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI), and Alexander Vik, seeking to enforce an approximately $243 million foreign judgment (English judgment) rendered against SHI by an English court and to pierce the corporate veil of SHI in order to hold Vik personally liable for that judgment. The trial court, applying the substantive law of Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), rendered judgment in favor of the defendants, and our Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 346 Conn. 564, 604, 294 A.3d 1 (2023).Thereafter, the trial court denied the defendants' postjudgment motions seeking approximately $11.5 million in prevailing party attorney's fees incurred in defense of this action, concluding that the issue of attorney's fees was a procedural matter governed by Connecticut law, which does not permit the recovery of such fees in this case. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in denying their motions because the issue of whether they are entitled to attorney's fees is governed by TCI law. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC46461 - Long v. Putnam (“The
plaintiff, Cassie Long, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial
court in favor of the defendant, the town of Putnam, on her complaint sounding
in pregnancy and gender discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Fair
Employment Practices Act (act), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. On appeal,
the plaintiff claims that the court incorrectly determined that there were no
genuine issues of material fact as to each of her claims. Because we agree that
there are genuine issues of material fact as to the plaintiff’s claim of
pregnancy discrimination, we reverse the judgment of the court as to that
claim. We decline to reach the merits of the plaintiff’s claim that the court
improperly rendered summary judgment on her gender discrimination claim as the
claim was inadequately briefed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
court with respect to her gender discrimination claim.”)
SC21018 - Brewer v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the Appellate Court
improperly affirmed the judgment of the habeas court. After examining the
entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the
parties, we have determined that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground
that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed.”)
AC48113 - Bordiere v. Chandler ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff, Patricia K. Bordiere, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant Patrani J. Chandler. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) finding in favor of the defendant on her special defense of promissory estoppel and (2) not finding that the oral agreement on which the defendant relied in discontinuing her payments on the mortgage was unenforceable under the statute of frauds. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC47532 - Sargent v. Zoning Board of Appeals ("The plaintiff, Gregory Sargent, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Fairfield (board), which upheld the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance by the town's zoning enforcement officer to the intervening defendants, Barbara Bertozzi Castelli and Jose Meller, as trustees of the BBC Revocable Trust. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court incorrectly concluded that a variance that had been granted to the intervening defendants in 2011 properly was considered in calculating the maximum building height of the intervening defendants' proposed residence. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC47513 - State v. Marcus ("The defendant, Alphonso Marcus, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial to the court, of assault of a correctional officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167c. On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because there was no evidence that he caused physical injury. Specifically, he challenges the court’s finding that the correctional officer suffered any physical injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")