A new research guide called Petition for New Trial (Criminal) is posted on our research guides webpage.

It has information about what the purpose of the petition for new trial is, how it is different from the motion for new trial, and what procedures petitioners must follow.

A petition for new trial is a civil proceeding that is distinct from the underlying case it stems from, but the guide focuses on using the petition when the underlying case is a criminal matter. This will expand our offering of Criminal Law Research Guides.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.

Monday, March 4th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 3:15 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Stamford Law Library opens at 12:30 p.m.

Tuesday, March 5th

• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, March 6th

• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, March 7th

• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library is closed.

Friday, March 8th

• New Britain Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

SC20656 - Drumm v. Freedom of Information Commission (Exception from law enforcement records; "Because § 1-210 (b) seeks to strike a balance between competing public goods, fostering openness and transparency while protecting important governmental functions that demand a degree of confidentiality, it makes sense that the legislature would have carved out an exception only for law enforcement actions that are, at the very least, reasonable possibilities. ...Although the commission found this evidence to be insufficient to satisfy the respondents’ burden, we find it significant that the commission’s final decision was predicated, as we explain hereinafter, on the clearly erroneous factual finding that the police department had not identified a suspect and, potentially, on the application of a standard that required the respondents to demonstrate either an actual or pending law enforcement action. Because application of the reasonable possibility standard that we adopted in this opinion is fact intensive, we conclude that the case must be remanded to the commission for further proceedings.")

• Posted in:
• Freedom of Information Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 35, for February 27, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 532 - 609)
• Volume 348: Orders (Pages 950 - 950)
• Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 223: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 849 - 880)
• Volume 223: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 905)
• Volume 223: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Volume 224: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 66)
• Volume 224: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Volume 224: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

AC46050 - De Almeida-Kennedy v. Kennedy ("In this postjudgment dissolution matter, the self-represented defendant, James Kennedy, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion for modification of his unallocated alimony and child support obligation. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in (1) determining that the change in residence of the parties’ older child did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances, (2) denying the defendant’s motion without determining the child support component of the unallocated order, (3) interpreting the unallocated support obligation as set forth in the parties’ separation agreement to be nonmodifiable, and (4) disallowing the testimony of the parties’ older child as to the alleged cohabitation of the plaintiff, Fatima K. De Almeida-Kennedy. We reverse in part the judgment of the court.")

AC45727 - Marshall v. Marshall ("In this marital dissolution action, the defendant, John Marshall II, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Margaret Marshall, challenging the factual and legal bases for the court’s alimony and child support orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) relied on the plaintiff’s allegedly manipulated 2020 income in fashioning the alimony and child support orders, rather than relying on the plaintiff’s 2021 partnership distributions, and, alternatively, (2) based those support orders on the plaintiff’s reported income rather than on her earning capacity. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20716 - GenConn Energy, LLC v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority ("On appeal to this court, GenConn argues that the trial court erred in concluding that PURA had acted within its authority. GenConn contends that PURA acted outside the scope of its authority under General Statutes § 16-243u, which specifically addresses peaking generation facilities, when it applied the general rate-making principles from § 16-19e in adjusting GenConn’s recovery. GenConn also contends that PURA’s change in methodology in evaluating the 2021 AFRR application was arbitrary and capricious. For its part, PURA contends that § 16-243u expressly affords it the authority to use the rate-making principles in § 16-19e, and, because it is statutorily obligated to review GenConn’s recovery each year, its decision to lower GenConn’s recovery was not arbitrary and capricious. We conclude that § 16-243u authorized PURA to determine GenConn’s recovery using the general rate-making principles found in § 16-19e and that the ‘‘change’’ in PURA’s methodology does not constitute an arbitrary and capricious decision. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• SC20716 Dissent - GenConn Energy, LLC v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45974 - Vering v. Groton Long Point Assn., Inc. (Declaratory judgment; adverse possession; prescriptive easement; "The present case arises from a dispute between the plaintiffs, Peter B. Viering, Russell W. Viering, Jr., Christine Carr, Jane M. Battles, Thomas E. Kingston, Jr., and Bobbye Lou Sims, and the defendant, The Groton Long Point Association, Inc., concerning the plaintiffs' claimed right to make exclusive use of two strips of land denominated as rights-of-way on land owned by the defendant that abuts the plaintiffs' residential properties in the Groton Long Point section of Groton. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment rendered against them by the trial court on the granting of a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant and the denial of the plaintiffs' own motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred in its summary judgment rulings by (1) failing to consider whether access easements over the two rights-of-way had been granted to them by deed, and thereby conferred on them the right to use such rights-of-way to the exclusion of all others, and failing in so ruling to consider certain extrinsic evidence allegedly relevant to that claim; (2) concluding that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs' claim that they had acquired the rights-of-way by adverse possession or, alternatively, that they had acquired prescriptive easements over the rights-of-way; and (3) failing to address their claim that the defendant had abandoned the rights-of-way. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.

Thursday, February 22nd

• Middletown Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.
• New London Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library is closed.

Friday, February 23rd

• New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Monday, February 26th

• New Britain Law Library opens at 9:15 a.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Tuesday, February 27th

• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, February 28th

• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, February 29th

• New London Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Friday, March 1st

• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 34, for February 20, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

Table of Contents
Volume 223: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 763 - 849)
Volume 223: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 904)
Volume 223: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Miscellaneous Notices

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

AC45698 - F. S. v. J. S. ("In this marital dissolution action, the defendant, J. S., appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding the plaintiff, F. S., sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor child, O. The self-represented defendant claims on appeal that he is entitled to a new custody hearing because the court improperly (1) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2018), by refusing to continue to provide him with a medical accommodation previously granted to him by the court; (2) terminated the defendant’s presentation of evidence and denied certain motions in retaliation for his exercising his rights under the ADA; (3) relied on the defendant’s mental disability as a basis for awarding custody to the plaintiff and restricting his right to visitation; (4) relied on a stale custody evaluation in determining the best interest of O; (5) required the parties to request leave of the court before filing motions and denied multiple such requests made by the defendant; (6) awarded sole custody of O to the plaintiff despite the fact that the parties previously shared custody and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any substantial change in circumstances; (7) found that the defendant suffered from narcissistic personality disorder; and (8) committed evidentiary errors by (a) admitting the testimony of a social worker from the Department of Children and Families and (b) admitting and relying on an affidavit of O’s former therapist, Damion Grasso. Having carefully reviewed the voluminous record presented, we conclude that the defendant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45984 - Clue v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that its equitable authority to open the judgment outside of the four month period set forth in General Statutes § 52-212a was limited to cases in which the judgment was obtained by fraud, duress, or mutual mistake. We agree and conclude that, in the context of a habeas corpus case, the court has the authority to consider an otherwise untimely motion to open that is based on the ineffective assistance of habeas counsel. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case for a new hearing on the petitioner’s motion to open.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46440 - Cameron v. Santiago ("The self-represented plaintiff, Catherina Cameron, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing, sua sponte, her action against the defendant, Javier Santiago. On appeal, she claims that the court deprived her of procedural due process by sua sponte dismissing her action, with prejudice, without giving her notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to the grounds on which the court based its dismissal. We agree with the plaintiff and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 33, for February 13, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

Table of Contents
Volume 348: Orders (Pages 948 - 950)
Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
Volume 223: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 676 - 763)
Volume 223: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 903)
Volume 223: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Miscellaneous Notices

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

Monday, February 19th

• All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed in observance of the holiday.

Tuesday, February 20th

• Bridgeport Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Rockville Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, February 21st

• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.

Thursday, February 22nd

• Middletown Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.
• New London Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library is closed.

Friday, February 23rd

• Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

AC45758 - Vecchiarino v. Potter (“In this appeal from the judgments of the Superior Court approving the settlement agreement, the defendant Elizabeth Isenburg, a former romantic partner of the decedent, who is neither a named beneficiary under the contested will nor an heir-at-law of the decedent, claims that she is a ‘‘[person] interested in the estate’’ pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-434 (c) and that the court should not have approved the settlement agreement without her participation in it. We are not persuaded by her claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the Superior Court.”)

• Posted in:
• Probate Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45538 - Silano v. Cooney ("The self-represented plaintiff, Virginia Silano, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant Kevin Hammel on count two of the plaintiff's complaint alleging malicious prosecution. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on her malicious prosecution claim, (2) rejected her arguments with respect to intentional spoliation, and (3) admitted into evidence the defendant's contemporaneous notes regarding his viewing of a surveillance video that the plaintiff contends the defendant failed to preserve. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC45737 - Williams v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that he relied on the advice of counsel when he pleaded guilty to capital felony and other charges, accepting a total effective sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release in exchange for the state’s agreeing to not seek the death penalty against him. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the court (1) improperly rejected his claims that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress his confession and failing to investigate or properly advise him of a potential mental disease or defect defense, and (2) abused its discretion in excluding his testimony that he would have rejected the plea agreement and insisted on going to trial if his counsel had properly informed him of the potential defense to his pending charges. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC 45824 - Wethington v. Wethington ("The defendant, Joshua Wethington, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Esther Wethington. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) granted several motions for contempt pendente lite filed by the plaintiff, (2) distributed the parties’ assets, and (3) denied several of his postjudgment motions to reargue. We reverse the judgment of the trial court only with respect to the court’s (1) denial of one of the defendant’s motions to reargue and (2) grants of two of the plaintiff’s contempt motions, in whole or in part, insofar as the court adjudicated the defendant in contempt of the automatic orders pursuant to Practice Book § 25-5 (b) for actions that he committed before the automatic orders had become effective against him. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45810 - Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC v. Roman ("Louis Roman appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to dismiss this foreclosure action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Roman filed this appeal as a self-represented litigant seeking to represent the interests of the named defendant, Louis Roman, in Trust for Alexandria K. Roman and Dakota T. Roman (trust). Because Roman, who is neither a party to this action nor an attorney, has appeared without counsel on behalf of a trust, we conclude that Roman does not have the authority to represent the trust. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

The 2024 edition of the research guide on Rights of Grandparents and Third Parties in Connecticut has been added to our research guides webpage.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help