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.
AC40008, AC40047 - Kirwan v. Kirwan ("In these
consolidated appeals arising out of a marital dissolution action, we must determine,
inter alia, whether an arbitrator's factual finding regarding the gross income
of a party, which was made in the course of determining alimony and the equitable
distribution of marital assets, is binding on the court with respect to its subsequent
adjudication of child support, an issue that was statutorily and contractually excluded
from the arbitration. We conclude that it was proper for the trial court to
make its own independent findings regarding gross income, unfettered by the
previous findings of the arbitrator.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 17, for October 23, 2018 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 329 Conn. Replacement Pages 781 - 786
- Volume 330: Orders (Pages 924 - 927)
- Volume 330: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 185: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 512 - 656)
- Volume 185: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 906 - 906)
- Volume 185: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Supreme Court Pending Cases
SC19852, SC19853 - Commissioner of Emergency Services & Public Protection v. Freedom of Information Commission (Freedom of information; administrative appeal; "The central issue in this appeal is whether the search and seizure statutes, General Statutes §§ 54-33a through 54-36p, provide a basis for an exemption from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (act), General Statutes § 1-200 et seq. Specifically, we must decide whether the trial court improperly concluded that the search and seizure statutes satisfy the requirements set forth in General Statutes § 1-210 (a), which exempts documents from disclosure under the act that are 'otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute . . . .' (Emphasis added.) We conclude that the search and seizure statutes do not meet the requirements set forth in § 1-210 (a) and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
Tuesday, October 23rd
- Waterbury Law Library opens at noon.
Thursday, October 25th
- Hartford Law Library closes at 1:30 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
AC40184 - Agosto v. Premier Maintenance, Inc. ("The plaintiff, Ismael Agosto, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Premier Maintenance, Inc., on all counts of the second revised complaint in which the plaintiff alleged religious discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (act), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) utilized the pretext/McDonnell Douglas-Burdine model; Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252–56, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973); rather than the mixed-motive/Price Waterhouse model of analysis; Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 246, 109 S. Ct. 1775, 104 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1989); when adjudicating the defendant's motion for summary judgment, (2) improperly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the circumstances under which he was discharged from employment that give rise to a prima facie inference of religious discrimination and (3) improperly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact that he was not engaged in a protected activity that gave rise to a claim of retaliatory discharge. We disagree, and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC38325 - Seven Oaks Enterprises, L.P. v. DeVito ("The defendant Sherri DeVito appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered, after a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiffs, Seven Oaks Enterprises, L.P. (SOE), and Seven Oaks Management Corporation (SOM), on two counts alleging breach of contract and one count alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The jury awarded $1.325 million in damages to the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict and her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiffs did not produce the original note at trial, there was insufficient evidence that the note was lost, and the plaintiffs did not have the right to enforce the note; (2) incorrectly instructed the jury regarding SOM's right to enforce the note; (3) lacked subject matter jurisdiction over SOE because it did not have the legal capacity to commence and continue the action; and (4) abused its discretion in denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in refusing to set aside the verdict because neither plaintiff had a right to enforce the management contract, the alleged breaches did not cause any loss to the plaintiffs, and the jury could not determine with reasonable certainty the amount of damages sustained. We affirm the judgment as to SOE's claim regarding breach of the management contract and reverse as to SOE's claim of breach of contract regarding the note and all of SOM's claims.")
AC40573 - Chamerda v. Opie (Slander of title; "The plaintiff Kimberly Chamerda inherited certain real property from her aunt, Elsie Nemeth. The defendant John Opie, who owned an adjacent parcel, hired the defendant Norbert W. Church, Jr., an attorney, to commence a legal challenge to the plaintiff's ownership of part of the property. After that action eventually was withdrawn, the plaintiff brought the present action in the Superior Court against Opie and Church for slander of title. The plaintiff now appeals from the judgment of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that the trial court erred by (1) concluding that the defendants were entitled to absolute or qualified immunity, or both, and (2) failing to apply the law of the case doctrine to bar the defendants from raising the immunity defense in their joint motion to dismiss where they had made nearly identical arguments in earlier motions for summary judgment. In addition to responding to the plaintiff's claims on appeal, the defendants raise an alternative ground on which to affirm the judgment: They claim that the court erred by denying their motions for summary judgment where their actions were privileged or the statute of limitations had run, or both. Although we agree with the plaintiff that the trial court erred in concluding that the challenged actions were absolutely privileged and therefore that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we nevertheless agree with the defendants that they were entitled to summary judgment on the statute of limitations ground. Accordingly, the form of the judgment is improper; we reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand the case to the trial court with direction to render judgment in favor of the defendants.")
AC40359 - State v. Montanez (Murder; conspiracy to violate dependency-producing drug laws; carrying pistol without permit; criminal possession of firearm; violation of probation; "The defendant, Elizardo Montanez, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), conspiracy to violate the dependency-producing drug laws in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 21a-277 (a), and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a), and, following a court trial, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1). The defendant also appeals from the judgment revoking his probation after the trial court found him to be in violation of his probation in violation of General Statutes § 53a-32. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) he was denied his right to due process and trial by a fair and impartial jury when the court denied his request for a mistrial after a bullet hole was discovered in the jury room during deliberations, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that drive test survey data is admissible under the test for admissibility of scientific evidence set forth in State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57, 698 A.2d 739 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058, 118 S. Ct. 1384, 140 L. Ed. 2d 645 (1998). We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")
AC40312 - Langston v. Commissioner of Correction-
Dismissal of petition for a writ of habeas corpus as
untimely under General Statutes § 52-470 (e). (“The petitioner argues that he
established good cause for the delayed filing of his untimely petition, and the
habeas court’s judgment of dismissal was improper. We are not convinced and,
thus, affirm the judgment of the habeas court… on appeal, he argues that the
habeas court erred in concluding that he failed to show good cause for the
delay. Specifically, the petitioner contends that (1) this untimely petition
does not violate the spirit or purpose of § 52-470 because it concerns issues
that have been litigated consistently since 1999, and (2) in withdrawing his
prior petition, he was following the advice of his former attorney and did not
understand the consequences of this decision. We are not persuaded.”)
AC41469 - In re Madison M. ("On appeal, the respondent claims that he was not provided
the specific steps mandated by General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) and,
consequently, was unable to achieve a level of rehabilitation that would
reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date he could assume a responsible
position in the lives of his children. Additionally, the respondent contends
that the failure to provide him with the specific steps did not constitute harmless
error. We do not agree with either argument and, therefore, affirm the
judgments of the trial court.")
The Law Librarians will be presenting a program called, "Online Legal Research Tools available at the Judicial Branch Law Libraries," on October 29th from 1:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. at 20 Park Street, Rockville, CT.
To RSVP and for more info, visit: .
Tuesday, October 17th
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library closes at 3:15 p.m.
Wednesday, October 18th
- Torrington Law Library opens at 2:00 p.m.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 16, for October 16, 2018 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 330: Connecticut Reports (Pages 342 - 372)
- Volume 330: Orders (Pages 919 - 923)
- Volume 330: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 185: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 388 - 512)
- Volume 185: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Supreme Court Pending Cases
Did you know the Connecticut Judicial Branch provides general procedural information on certain civil matters, such as filing a Civil Foreign Judgment, Prejudgment Remedy, and Replevin, on their Civil Procedures page? These procedures include a basic outline of the steps necessary to file the action, statutory and rule references, and links to forms, if applicable.
All posted information has been updated as of July 2018. Please note that the information is provided by the Connecticut Judicial Branch as a public service, and is not intended to be legal advice (Disclaimer).
AC40603 - Walenski v. Connecticut State Employees Retirement Commission (Administrative appeal; subject matter jurisdiction; spousal retirement benefits pursuant to State Employees Retirement Act (§ 5-152 et seq.); "The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly dismissed the administrative appeal filed by the plaintiff, Carol Walenski, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to her failure to obtain a final decision from, or to otherwise exhaust her administrative remedies with, the named defendant, the Connecticut State Employees Retirement Commission (commission). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court, Huddleston, J., improperly dismissed her appeal because (1) the commission and a prior judge of the Superior Court concluded that the court had subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) she appealed from a final decision by an administrative agency pursuant to General Statutes § 4-166 (5) (A) and (C). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
SC20012 - State v. Newton (Illegal practices in campaign financing; "This appeal requires us to determine the appropriate mens rea for the crime of illegal practices in campaign financing. The defendant, Ernest Newton II, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of three counts of illegal practices in campaign financing in violation of General Statutes §§ 9-622 (7) and 53a-8. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury that, in order to find him guilty of an illegal campaign financing practice in violation of § 9-622 (7), it must find that he acted with specific intent to violate that statute. The state responds that the defendant waived his instructional challenge and, in the alternative, that the trial court properly instructed the jury that the state was required to prove only that the defendant acted with general intent. We conclude that the trial court improperly instructed the jury as to the applicable mens rea for the crime of illegal campaign financing practices. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.")
AC41116 - State v. Mendez (Felony murder; robbery in first degree; reviewability of claim that trial court improperly granted appellate counsel's motion for leave to withdraw appearance filed pursuant to applicable rule of practice (§ 62-9 [d]); "In this direct criminal appeal, the self-represented defendant, Kezlyn Mendez, claims that the trial court violated his right to due process by improperly granting his court-appointed appellate counsel's motion for leave to withdraw her appearance in accordance with Practice Book § 62-9 (d). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC40188 - Martinez v. Premier Maintenance, Inc. ("The plaintiff, Luis Martinez, appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Premier Maintenance, Inc., on all three counts of the plaintiff's second revised complaint alleging religious discrimination in violation of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (act), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) utilized the pretext/McDonnell Douglas-Burdine model; Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252–56, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973); rather than the mixed-motive/Price Waterhouse model of analysis; Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 246, 109 S. Ct. 1775, 104 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1989); when adjudicating the motion for summary judgment, (2) concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether he had demonstrated a prima facie case of employment discrimination, and (3) concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact that he was not engaged in a protected activity under the act. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC40582 - Muckle v. Pressley (Negligence; "The plaintiff, David Muckle, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his claim for prejudgment interest against the defendants, Ronald Pressley and the city of New Haven. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that General Statutes § 37-3b permits only postjudgment interest in negligence actions. We disagree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC39040 - Seaside National Bank & Trust v. Lussier ("The defendant, Gerald Lussier, also known as Gerald J. Lussier, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Seaside National Bank & Trust. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability, (2) violated his constitutional right to procedural due process by denying him the opportunity to depose the plaintiff's affiant upon whose testimony the court relied in rendering judgment, and (3) abused its discretion in denying his request for a continuance pursuant to Practice Book § 17-47 and in granting the plaintiff's motion for a protective order. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC39407 - Britton v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the second habeas court, Fuger, J., (1) abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal, and (2) improperly concluded that he was not denied the constitutional right to due process because the jury was not instructed pursuant to State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008), to the effective assistance of trial counsel and to the effective assistance of first habeas counsel. Although we agree that the second habeas court abused its discretion by denying the petitioner certification to appeal, we disagree that the court improperly denied his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the second habeas court.")