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.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 48, for May 29, 2018 is now available.
Contained in this issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 328: Orders (Pages 937 - 939)
- Volume 328: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 182: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 200 - 312)
- Volume 182: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
- Volume 182: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
AC39463 - State v. Hearl (Cruelty to animals; "The defendant, Michael A. Hearl, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, on nineteen counts of animal cruelty in violation of General Statutes § 53-247 (a). The defendant claims that (1) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction, (2) the trial court did not provide the jury with a proper instruction on the required mental state to prove a violation of § 53-247 (a), (3) § 53-247 (a) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct, and (4) his conviction and sentencing on nineteen separate counts of animal cruelty violates the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC39172 - Lynn v. Bosco ("This case is about the propriety of a judicial remedy binding
a company that had been cited in as a party by the plaintiffs, Jack E. Lynn and
Jeffrey Lynn, for notice purposes only and against whom no allegations had been
pleaded. The defendant Aerospace Techniques, Inc. (company), appeals from the
January 11, 2016 judgment of the trial court ordering the company to pay the
owners of 141 shares of treasury stock issued to the defendants Clyde E.
Warner, Robert J. Bosco, Sr. (Bosco), Anthony Parillo, Jr., and Richard B.
Polivy in exchange for the return of the 141 shares to the company. The company
claims that the trial court acted beyond the scope of its authority by entering
an order that imposed a remedy on the company, although neither party made any
allegations against or sought relief from the company in the operative
complaint. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
AC40123 - Tedesco v. Agolli ("The defendants, Resmije Agolli and Fikri Development, LLC (Fikri), appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Scott Tedesco, trustee of the Heritage Builders of Waterbury, LLC, 401 (k) Profit Sharing Plan. On appeal, the defendants challenge the trial court's findings with respect to the dates of disassociation and removal of Gina Antonios as member and Joseph Antonios as manager of Fikri. The defendants also claim that the court improperly found that Agolli, as a member of Fikri, had the authority to bind Fikri to the mortgage at issue in the present case.")
AC38829 - Perez v. University of Connecticut (Negligence; "The issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff Christian Perez has the right to a jury trial in a negligence action for monetary damages against the defendant, the state of Connecticut. The plaintiff was authorized to bring his action against the state by the General Assembly pursuant to General Statutes § 4-159 (b) (1) (B) (ii). Following a trial to the court, judgment was rendered in favor of the state. The plaintiff now appeals from the judgment, claiming that the court improperly granted the state's motion to strike his action from the jury list. We affirm the judgment of the court.")
AC39488- Clements v. Aramark Corp. ("The principal issue in this appeal is the compensability,
under the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., of an injury to an
employee that occurred on an employer’s premises when the employee became
lightheaded, fell, and hit her head while walking to her work station before
the start of her shift... The plaintiff claims that the board erred in holding
that, because the plaintiff’s fall was caused by her personal infirmity, rather
than a workplace condition, her resultant head injury did not arise out of and
in the course of her employment within the meaning of the act. We agree and,
accordingly, reverse the decision of the board.")
SC20007 - Cook-Littman v. Board of Selectmen (Writ of mandamus; "In this appeal, we consider how a town charter provision that controls the filling of vacancies on that town's board of selectmen relates to General Statutes § 9-222, which provides a statutory procedure for filling such vacancies, in light of the home rule principles that govern the relationship between municipalities and the state.The defendants town of Fairfield (town) and its Board of Selectmen (board) appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting an application by the plaintiffs, five individual electors of the town, for a writ of mandamus ordering a special election for a vacant seat on the board. On appeal, the defendants claim, inter alia, that article VI, § 6.3 (B), of the Fairfield Town Charter (charter), which does not provide for a special election when the board has acted to fill a vacancy within thirty days, is controlling over § 9-222, which contemplates the possibility of a petition for a special election to fill such a vacancy even after the board has acted, and that, therefore, the trial court improperly issued a writ of mandamus compelling a special election in the present case. We agree with the defendants and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
The Law Library at Middletown has received the following new titles: