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.

Connectictut Practice Book - Appendix of Rules Changes Due to Public Health and Civil Preparedness Emergencies

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4331

The 2021 Connecticut Practice Book contains an Appendix of Section 1-9B Changes: Practice Book Rules Adopted, Amended or Suspended Under Section 1-9B in Light of the Declared Public Health and Civil Preparedness Emergencies:

On March 10, 2020, Governor Lamont declared a public health emergency and a civil preparedness emergency. Those states of emergency were renewed by Governor Lamont on September1, 2020. On March 24, 2020, and May 11, 2020, the Rules Committee of the Superior Court met pursuant to its emergency authority in Section 1-9B and adopted, amended, or suspended various rules that the committee deemed necessary in light of those declared emergencies. On June 26,2020, the judges of the Superior Court considered the actions taken by the Rules Committee and adopted the changes set forth herein. A copy of these changes was promulgated in the Connecticut Law Journal on July 14, 2020.
...
NOTE CONCERNING STATUS OF APPENDIX: This appendix reflects the status of rules that were adopted, amended, or suspended as of July 14, 2020, the date of publication in the Connecticut Law Journal. Subsequent to that publication, some of these provisions have changed due to the fluid nature of the public health emergency and the civil preparedness emergency. The reader is cautioned to refer to www.jud.ct.gov, www.jud.ct.gov/COVID19.htm and www.jud.ct.gov/pb.htm for the current status of the provisions contained in this appendix
.

See also the Covid-19 Updates, Frequently Asked Questions – COVID-19 and Court Business, and Connecticut Practice Book web pages.



Juvenile Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4329

AC44186 - In re Miyuki M. (“On appeal, the respondent claims that (1) the court’s failure to canvass her regarding her written stipulation of facts violates her right to due process under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution, constitutes plain error, and requires the exercise of our supervisory authority, and (2) the court erred in denying her motion to transfer guardianship of her child to the child’s maternal grandmother. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Technical Difficulties - NewsLog Email Daily Digest

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4328

We are currently experiencing a technical issue with our NewsLog daily email subscriptions, and our daily emails are not being sent to our subscribers. We hope to have this issue resolved soon. Subscribers to the NewsLog do not need to resubscribe. NewsLog emails should begin again for subscribers in the next few days or early next week.


Connecticut Law Journal - February 23, 2021

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4327

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 34, for February 23, 2021 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 336: Connecticut Reports (Pages 194 - 218)
  • Volume 336: Orders (Pages 915 - 915)
  • Volume 336: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 202: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 628 - 826)
  • Volume 202: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 906 - 907)
  • Volume 202: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Juvenile Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4326

AC44060 - In re Phoenix A. (Reasonable efforts prong of § 17a-112 (j) (1); claim of failure to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation; “On appeal, the respondent claims that the court erred by (1) finding that he was unable or unwilling to benefit from reunification services, (2) finding that he had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation, and (3) determining that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of Phoenix. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


General Statutes Amended or Repealed in 2020

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4325

The Legislative Commissioners' Office has published its reference table listing General Statutes Amended or Repealed in 2020. This table can be used to check whether a statute has been affected by 2020 legislation. The reference tables for 2020 are listed below:


Business Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4321

AC42383 - Deleo v. Equale & Cirone, LLP ("The defendants, Equale & Cirone, LLP (partnership), and Anthony W. Cirone, Jr., appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Derek J. DeLeo, on the defendants' counterclaim for damages under the noncompete provision of the parties' partnership agreement (noncompete provision). The defendants claim that the trial court erred in concluding that the noncompete provision constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade and, therefore, is unenforceable. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4320

AC42685 - Fronsaglia v. Fronsaglia ("The defendant, Benigno Fronsaglia, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Lisa Fronsaglia. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in fashioning its financial orders by making a grossly disproportionate property distribution in the plaintiff's favor and by assigning the majority of the marital debt to him, (2) erred by basing its orders on the defendant's assumed earning capacity of $160,000, where no evidence existed to support the earning capacity determined by the court, (3) erred in basing its alimony award on gross income rather than net income, when there was no evidence to support a net income based on the defendant's assumed gross income, and (4) abused its discretion by awarding alimony to the plaintiff to punish the defendant for his purported misdeeds. We 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=4322

AC43052 - MSW Associates, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Dept. ("This zoning appeal concerns the conflict that sometimes arises between the state's authority to regulate solid waste management and a municipality's right to regulate the structures and land use within its borders. The plaintiff, MSW Associates, LLC, filed a site plan application (site plan) to construct and operate a solid waste transfer station and volume reduction plant in Danbury (city) that was denied by the defendant, the Planning and Zoning Department of the City of Danbury. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8. The Superior Court sustained the plaintiff's appeal. Thereafter, this court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal.

On appeal before us, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by (1) construing General Statutes § 22a-208b (b) to require it to approve the site plan even though the use is prohibited in the IG-80 zone in which it was proposed and when the city's zoning regulations (regulations) permit other types of solid waste facilities at other locations in the city, (2) ruling that the regulations 'have the effect of prohibiting the construction, alteration or operation of solid waste facilities within the limits' of the city and thus violate § 22a-208b (b), (3) refusing to invoke the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to remand the case to the city's zoning commission, and (4) disregarding the language of § 22a-208b (b) that '[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the right of a municipality to regulate, through zoning, land usage for an existing or new solid waste facility,' and by ordering it to approve the site plan in a particular location and zone, thereby usurping the legislative authority of the zoning commission. The defendant also claims that the plaintiff lacks standing to claim a violation of § 22a-208b (b) on the basis of allegations that the regulations fail to allow solid waste facilities other than the specific subtype of facility that it seeks to construct on its property. We agree with the court that the plain language of § 22a-208b (b) bars zoning regulations from having the effect, as the city's do, of prohibiting construction of solid waste facilities of any type within its borders. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4319

AC43500 - State v. Sayles (Felony murder; conspiracy to commit robbery in first degree; criminal possession of pistol or revolver; carrying pistol without permit; motion to suppress; "The defendant, Dwayne Sayles, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-134 (a) (2), criminal possession of a pistol or revolver in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217c and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motions to suppress certain evidence. Specifically, he contends that (1) police detectives violated his Miranda rights and his rights pursuant to article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution when they continued to interrogate him after he invoked his right to counsel, (2) the police detectives seized his cell phone in violation of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution, and (3) the affidavit that the police submitted in support of their application for a warrant to search the contents of his cell phone contained materially false information. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4324

AC42890 - Godfrey v. Commissioner of Correction (Common-law contractual ‘‘frustration of purpose’’ doctrine; Whether a defendant “…who had been charged with a capital felony and pleaded guilty to murder in order to avoid the imposition of the death penalty is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea sixteen years later because the death penalty has since been abolished. We conclude that, even if the frustration of purpose doctrine applies to criminal plea agreements, the petitioner, Robert C. Godfrey, is not entitled to relief under that doctrine because by entering into the plea agreement, he assumed the risk that the death penalty might be abolished at some point while he was serving his sentence of sixty years of incarceration.”)

AC42785 - Collins v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) determined that his conflict of interest claim was procedurally defaulted and that, in any event, his trial counsel did not have a conflict of interest and (2) denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4323

AC42475 - Commissioner of Public Health v. Colandrea ("The defendant, Anthony Colandrea, a dentist, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying in part his motion to vacate a prior contempt judgment stemming from his noncompliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the plaintiff, the Commissioner of Public Health, for certain records of his dental practice. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) erred in finding that his noncompliance was wilful, (2) improperly awarded attorney's fees on the basis of wilful noncompliance, and (3) violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches when it issued an order permitting the plaintiff to search the office of his dental practice without a finding of probable cause or a valid search warrant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Juvenile Appellate Court Slip Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4318

AC44079 - In re Kameron N.. (Termination of rights; “…whether the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (tribe) received proper notice, pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., of the termination of parental rights proceedings involving the child, who is enrollable as a member of the tribe. We reject the claim of the respondent that the tribe did not receive adequate notice of the termination proceedings and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC44086 - In re Kameron N. (“On appeal, she claims that (1) the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (tribe) did not receive proper notice, pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., of the termination of parental rights proceedings involving the child, who is enrollable as a member of the tribe, (2) the trial court erred in denying her motion to open the evidence ‘‘for the purpose of introducing new evidence, which was discovered after the close of evidence, regarding placement of the child,’’ and (3) the trial court erred in finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Connecticut Law Journal - February 16, 2021

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4317

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 33, for February 16, 2021 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 336: Connecticut Reports (Pages 1 - 193)
  • Volume 336: Orders (Pages 912 - 915)
  • Volume 336: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 202: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 582 - 628)
  • Volume 202: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 905 - 906)
  • Volume 202: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Updated Office of Legislative Research Reports

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4116

The Office of Legislative Research has updated the following reports through February 11, 2021, which includes the extending and other provisions of the Governor's most recent Executive Order 10A:

COVID-19 Executive Orders Affecting Business, Labor, and Housing 2020-R-0109
This report provides brief summaries of the governor's COVID-19 executive orders concerning business, labor, and housing

COVID-19 Executive Orders Affecting Health and Human Services 2020-R-0110
This report provides brief summaries of the governor's COVID-19 executive orders concerning health and human services

COVID-19 Executive Orders Affecting Education and Child Care 2020-R-0111
This report provides brief summaries of the governor's COVID-19 executive orders concerning education and child care

COVID-19 Executive Orders Affecting State and Local Government Operations and Elections 2020-R-0112
This report provides brief summaries of the governor's COVID-19 executive orders concerning state and local government operations and elections


Declaratory Judgment Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4316

SC20486 - Fay v. Merrill ("The principal issue in this public interest appeal is whether Governor Ned Lamont's Executive Order No. 7QQ, which was later ratified by the legislature; see Public Acts, Spec. Sess., July, 2020, No. 20-3, § 16 (Spec. Sess. P.A. 20-3); and which modified General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 9-135 by adding 'COVID-19' as a permissible reason for absentee voting, violates article sixth, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution. The four plaintiffs, who were candidates for the Republican Party's nomination for United States Congress for Connecticut's First and Second Congressional Districts, appealed directly pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant, Denise W. Merrill, Secretary of the State, in this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the defendant's change of the absentee ballot application for the August 11, 2020 primary election (August primary) to add coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a new reason for requesting an absentee ballot pursuant to Executive Order No. 7QQ. Following deliberations after an expedited oral argument held on August 6, 2020, we ruled from the bench that (1) the plaintiffs were aggrieved and had standing to bring the declaratory judgment action, (2) we could not consider, for the first time on appeal, the defendant's special defense of laches as an alternative ground for affirming the judgment of the trial court, and (3) Executive Order No. 7QQ does not violate article sixth, § 7, because the phrase 'unable to appear at the polling place on the day of election because of . . . sickness,' as used in that constitutional provision, is not limited to an illness suffered by the individual voter that renders that person physically unable to travel to the polling place. Accordingly, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court and indicated that a written opinion would follow. This is that opinion.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4315

SC20187 - State v. Smith (Felony Murder and Manslaughter; Motion to correct illegal sentence; Whether rule established in State v. Polanco requiring vacatur as remedy for cumulative convictions in violation of double jeopardy protections applies retroactively."The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a motion to correct an illegal sentence when the defendant, Jeffrey Smith, claimed that the sentencing court improperly failed to follow State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242, 255, 61 A.3d 1084 (2013), in which this court exercised its supervisory power to hold that the proper remedy for cumulative convictions that violate the double jeopardy clause is to vacate one of the convictions. In 2005, the defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of felony murder and manslaughter in the first degree, among other crimes. The trial court, Schimelman, J., merged the conviction for manslaughter with the felony murder conviction and sentenced the defendant to sixty years in prison on the felony murder charge. In 2015, the defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in which he contended that the sentence was illegal under the Polanco supervisory rule because the court merged the convictions instead of vacating the conviction on the manslaughter charge. The trial court, Strackbein, J., concluded that, because Polanco was decided pursuant to this court's supervisory authority, it did not apply retroactively. Accordingly, the trial court denied the defendant's motion. The defendant appealed, and the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See State v. Smith, 180 Conn. App. 371, 384, 184 A.3d 831 (2018). We then granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal to this court, limited to the following issue: "Does this court's holding in State v. Polanco, [supra, 255], readopting vacatur as a remedy for a cumulative conviction that violates double jeopardy protections, apply retroactively?" State v. Smith, 330 Conn. 908, 193 A.3d 559 (2018). In its brief to this court, the state claims for the first time that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence because the motion sought only to modify the defendant's conviction, not his sentence. We agree with the state's jurisdictional claim, and, accordingly, we conclude that the form of the Appellate Court's judgment affirming the judgment of the trial court was improper. We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case to that court with direction to remand the case to the trial court with direction to dismiss the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4314

AC42498 - McCall v. Sopneski (Negligence; motion for summary judgment; whether trial court properly rendered summary judgment on ground that defendant automobile dealer was immune from liability pursuant to statute (§ 14-60) for damages allegedly caused by vehicle loaned to customer; "The plaintiff, Kyle McCall, was injured when the motorcycle he was operating was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant Gina Sopneski and owned by the defendant Reynolds Garage & Marine, Inc., known also as Reynolds Subaru (Reynolds). The plaintiff thereafter served a two count complaint on the defendants, alleging in the first count negligence against Sopneski and in the second count vicarious liability against Reynolds pursuant to General Statutes § 14-154a. The trial court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Reynolds on the second count of the complaint, concluding as a matter of law that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Reynolds was immune from liability for Sopneski's actions. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the propriety of that determination.We 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=4313

AC43035 - International Investors v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission (Zoning; whether trial court improperly concluded that special permit granted to developer remained valid on basis that it could not be temporally limited; "This appeal requires us to consider whether a zoning authority may condition its approval of a special permit on the completion of development attendant to the permitted use by a date certain, in effect imposing a conditional time limit on the special permit. The plaintiff, International Investors, appeals from the judgment of the trial court disposing of the plaintiff's appeal from the decision of the defendant Town Plan and Zoning Commission of the Town of Fairfield (commission) extending its approvals of a special permit and coastal site plan review granted to the defendant Fairfield Commons, LLC (Fairfield Commons). After sustaining the plaintiff's appeal insofar as it challenged the commission's decision to extend the special permit approval, the court ruled that it nonetheless was not finding that the special permit had expired because, it reasoned, the special permit, once recorded in the town land records, was valid indefinitely and not subject to a condition limiting its duration. On appeal before us, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the special permit remained valid on the basis that it could not be temporally limited. We reverse, in part, the judgment of the trial court.")


1 2 3 4