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 LXXXVII, No. 14, for September 30, 2025 is now available.
- Table of Contents
- Volume 353: Connecticut Reports (Pages 510 - 563)
- Volume 353: Orders (Pages 904 - 905)
- Volume 353: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 235: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 431 - 538)
- Volume 235: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 905)
- Volume 235: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
AC47312 - Riccio v. Commissioner of Correction (Meaning of "custody"; conditional discharge; “The petitioner claims that the court erred by dismissing his petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that he was not in custody pursuant to General Statutes § 52-466 while on conditional discharge. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)
AC47929 - Alicea v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the respondent claims that the court
incorrectly determined that the petitioner’s criminal trial counsel had
rendered ineffective assistance with respect to purported misadvice regarding
the admissibility into evidence of the petitioner’s prior convictions were he
to testify in support of his claim of self-defense. We agree and, accordingly,
reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court.”)
AC48574 - Villao v. Paz (Marital dissolution; postjudgment motion for contempt; "On May 30, 2025, the defendant filed a motion
for review of the order of the trial court determining
that its attorney’s fees award was in the nature of support and thus exempted from the automatic appellate
stay pursuant to Practice Book § 61-11 (c). On July
23, 2025, this court granted the motion for review and
granted the relief requested, vacating the trial court’s
order. This court also indicated that an opinion would
follow. This opinion sets forth the reasoning for our
decision.")
SC20865 - State v. Cooper ("After a jury trial, the defendant, Jahmari
Cooper, was convicted of murder in violation of General
Statutes § 53a-54a (a) for fatally shooting the victim,
Jeri Kollock, Jr., when the defendant was seventeen
years old. In this direct appeal pursuant to General
Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3), the defendant claims that (1)
the circumstances of his custodial police interrogation
do not establish a knowing and voluntary waiver of his
Miranda rights under the federal constitution, (2) even
if this court concludes that the federal constitutional
requirements were satisfied, he is entitled to greater
protection under our state constitution, (3) prosecutorial impropriety during closing and rebuttal arguments deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair
trial, and (4) the trial court erred in giving the jury a
consciousness of guilt instruction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC46997 - State v. Owens ("The self-represented defendant, Marvin
Owens, appeals from the judgments of the trial court
finding him in violation of the conditions of his probations and revoking his probations pursuant to General
Statutes § 53a-32. The defendant claims that (1) the
court improperly denied his motion to dismiss, which
alleged violations of his right to a speedy trial and of
the 120 day guideline contained in § 53a-32, (2) the court
violated his constitutional right to self-representation,
(3) the court found that he violated the conditions of
his probations on the basis of insufficient evidence, and
(4) the state violated his due process rights by failing
to correct false or misleading testimony. We affirm the
judgments of the court.")
AC46665 - Metropolitan District v. Mott ("The defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs David B. Mott and Jacqueline L. Mott (defendants) appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered on their counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment and to quiet title with respect to an express easement encumbering their property, which easement inures to the benefit of the plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, the Metropolitan District (plaintiff). On appeal, the defendants' claims distill to whether the court (1) committed error in issuing relief, (2) improperly failed to address certain issues, (3) improperly rendered judgment on their quiet title claim in the plaintiff's favor, (4) abused its discretion in admitting evidence during trial, and (5) improperly declined to award them attorney's fees and costs. We reverse the judgment of the trial court only insofar as the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff on the entirety of the defendants' quiet title claim.")
Thursday, September 25
- Torrington Law Library closes from 1:15 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
- Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Friday, September 26
- Danbury Law Library is open from 10:15 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library opens at 1:00 p.m.
- New London Law Library is open from 9:15 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
Monday, September 29
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
Wednesday, October 1
- Middletown Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
- New Britain Law Library is closed from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
Thursday, October 2
- Putnam Law Library is closed from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed from 1:15 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.
Friday, October 3
- Torrington Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.
Pursuant to Connecticut Public Act 25-91, the towns of Avon, Burlington, Canton, Farmington, Granby and Simsbury will be transferred from their present judicial districts to the Judicial District of Litchfield at Torrington. This change takes effect on October 1, 2025. Section 15 of the public act changes Connecticut General Statute section 51-344, which is entitled "Judicial Districts established". Section 16 of the public act changes Connecticut General Statute section 51-345, which deals with venue in civil actions and housing matters and return of civil process . The Jury Administration page states "beginning October 1, 2025, individuals summoned for jury service from the towns of Avon, Burlington, Canton, Farmington, Granby, and Simsbury will now report to the Torrington courthouse as they will now be part of the Litchfield Judicial District."
SC21039- Modzelewski's Towing & Storage v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles "In this certified appeal, we consider whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that § 14-63-36c (c) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies prohibited the plaintiffs, Modzelewski's Towing & Storage, Inc. (MTS), and Modzelewski's Towing & Recovery, Inc., from charging additional fees based on their costs associated with the use of special equipment that was needed to conduct certain "exceptional services" in connection with the nonconsensual towing of a tractor trailer. We conclude that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the fees for exceptional services must be based on an hourly charge for labor. See Modzelewski's Towing & Storage, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 225 Conn. App. 386, 401, 405–406, 316 A.3d 780 (2024). Instead, the regulatory reference in § 14-63-36c (c) to the itemization of "additional fees . . . in accordance with the hourly charge for labor posted by the licensed towing service" is more reasonably construed as a posting requirement. As a result, we also conclude that the plaintiffs may, pursuant to § 14-63-36c (c), charge additional fees for exceptional services that are based on the cost of the special equipment needed to provide the exceptional services. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case for further proceedings."
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVII, No. 13, for September 23, 2025 is now available.
- Table of Contents
- Replacement Pages
- Volume 353: Connecticut Reports (Pages 433 - 510)
- Volume 353: Orders (Pages 901 - 904)
- Volume 353: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 235: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 278 - 431)
- Volume 235: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 903)
- Volume 235: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
SC20990 - State v. Henderson ("Nearly thirty years ago, then Justice Robert J. Callahan anticipated the need for a particularized evidentiary showing of extreme emotional disturbance in intimate partner homicide cases in order not to establish 'a per se rule that anyone who kills a former girlfriend or boyfriend is entitled to a jury instruction on extreme emotional disturbance.' State v. Person, 236 Conn. 342, 361–62 and n.1, 673 A.2d 463 (1996) (Callahan, J., dissenting). Justice Callahan's observation is instructive as we consider the appeal of the defendant, Carlton Henderson, who was convicted, after a jury trial, of the murder of his long-term girlfriend (victim) in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court's denial of the defendant's request to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance under § 53a-54a (a) entitles him to a new trial. We disagree and affirm the judgment of conviction.")
AC47099 - Golden v. WorldQuant Predictive Technologies, LLC ("The plaintiff, James Golden, appeals from the judgments of the trial court denying his application to vacate an arbitration award and granting an application to confirm that award filed by the defendants, WorldQuant Predictive Technologies, LLC (WorldQuant), and Jeffrey Blomberg. On appeal, we consider whether (1) the plaintiff's failure to strictly comply with the requirements of Practice Book § 61-7 (a) (1) renders this appeal moot, (2) the arbitrator exceeded the scope of the arbitration submission and acted in manifest disregard of the law in awarding attorney's fees and costs to the defendants, (3) the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law in denying the plaintiff's counterclaim alleging breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and (4) the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law by misapplying the after-acquired evidence doctrine.We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")
Friday, September 19
- Torrington Law Library opens at 12:00 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Monday, September 22
- New Britain Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.
- New London Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Tuesday, September 23
- Stamford Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Wednesday, September 24
- New Britain Law Library opens at 11:15 a.m.
- Stamford Law Library opens at 1:00 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
Thursday, September 25
- Torrington Law Library closes from 1:15 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
- Danbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Friday, September 26
- Danbury Law Library is open from 10:15 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library opens at 1:00 p.m.
- New London Law Library is open from 9:15 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
AC46466 - Doe v. Lamb ("This civil action concerns the criminal conduct of the defendant Christopher Lamb, who, utilizing Internet services and computer devices provided by the defendant JoAnn Lohbush, hacked into the personal accounts of and harassed and exploited a number of innocent victims. The plaintiffs—Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, and John Doe 1—jointly appeal from the partial summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant because she voluntarily assumed a duty of care as to the plaintiffs or, in the alternative, that the defendant owed a general duty of care arising from her affirmative conduct. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC46630 - Speer v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC ("In this foreclosure and bankruptcy related action, the self-represented plaintiff, Sheri Speer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss her complaint in favor of the defendant, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff contends that the court improperly concluded that she lacked standing to maintain the claim set forth in her complaint due to the fact that she commenced this action during the pendency of a bankruptcy proceeding. More specifically, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly concluded that her claim was the property of the bankruptcy estate and was not abandoned by the trustee. We agree with the plaintiff that the court improperly dismissed her complaint. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss.")
AC47637 - McHenry Solar, LLC v. Hampton ("In this tax appeal, the plaintiff, McHenry Solar, LLC, appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment in which it argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its claim that certain personal property that it uses to generate electricity is exempt from taxation pursuant to General Statutes § 12-81 (76), which provides for the exemption of machinery and equipment used for manufacturing. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court incorrectly concluded that it was not entitled to the exemption pursuant to § 12-81 (76) because the generation of electricity is not manufacturing within the meaning of the exemption. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")
AC47595- Pence v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ("The plaintiff, Colin J. Pence, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court rendered in favor of the defendant. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (commissioner) dismissing his administrative appeal from the decision of the commissioner suspending his motor vehicle operator's license for forty-five days and requiring the installation of an ignition interlock device in his motor vehicle for six months pursuant to General Statutes § 14-227b (i). On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly dismissed his administrative appeal for lack of standing because he established that he is an indigent driver who does not own a motor vehicle, cannot afford a motor vehicle, and has no access to a motor vehicle in which to install an ignition interlock device, as is required by § 14-227b (i), and, therefore, there is a possibility that his legally protected interest in a motor vehicle operator's license will be adversely and unequally affected by the ignition interlock device requirement. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")
The Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has recently published the following new reports on their website:
Use of Handcuffs on Young Children - 2025-R-0149 - Can police officers restrain young children with handcuffs?
Connecticut's Unclaimed Property Law - 2025-R-0127 - This is a summary of Connecticut’s unclaimed property law. It updates OLR Report 2019-R-0014.
Municipal-Option Property Tax Exemptions for Veterans - 2025-R-0131 - Describes the municipal-option property tax exemptions for veterans. This report partially updates OLR Report 2024-R-0018 (see that report for the 2023 OLR survey conducted on municipal adoption of these exemptions).
Veterans Property Tax Exemptions by Town: State-Mandated Exemptions - 2025-R-0130 - What property tax exemptions must towns give veterans? For these exemptions, what amount does each town provide (adjusted for any “increase factor” under CGS § 12-62g)? This report updates OLR Report 2024-R-0004.
Connecticut's Emergency Regulation Adoption Process - 2025-R-0144 - Provides an overview of Connecticut’s emergency regulation adoption process.
Justices of the Peace - Connecticut Law - 2025-R-0123 - How are justices of the peace selected in Connecticut and what are their duties? (This report updates and expands OLR report 2016-R-0004.)
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVII, No. 12, for September 16, 2025 is now available.
- Table of Contents
- Volume 353: Connecticut Reports (Pages 338 - 432)
- Volume 353: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 235: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 111 - 278)
- Volume 235: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
- Volume 235: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Supreme Court Pending Cases
SC20784 - State v. Dixon ("The most significant issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court properly allowed the state's gang expert to testify as to 'neighborhoods,' 'neighborhood divisions,' and the 'dynamics' between neighborhoods in the city of Stamford, despite the fact that the prosecutor conceded that the defendant, Sirus Dixon, was not in a gang. The defendant also raises various other claims, including that the court failed to provide certain proposed jury instructions, the jury returned an inconsistent verdict, and there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. Although we agree with the defendant that the admission of the testimony from the state's gang expert witness was improper, we conclude that this error was harmless. We also reject the defendant's other claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.")
- SC20784 Concurrence - State v. Dixon