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.

Landlord/Tenant Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5963

SC20797 - Collier v. Adar Hartford Realty, LLC ("This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of a motion for class certification. The plaintiffs, former residents of Barbour Gardens, a housing development in the city of Hartford (city), instituted this action in connection with the living conditions at Barbour Gardens during their residency. They sought compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees from the owner of Barbour Gardens and its property management company, and alleged various tort, contract, equitable, and statutory claims, including a claim of a violation of a provision of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110g. The plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class on behalf 'of all persons who lived at Barbour Gardens for any or all of the time between June 24, 2004, and October 13, 2019,' which the trial court denied on the grounds that individualized issues would predominate over class-wide issues and that a class action is not a superior method to resolve the plaintiffs' claims. See Practice Book § 9-8 (3). In this appeal brought pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110h, the plaintiffs contend that there is sufficient evidence in the record common to the entire class to satisfy the predominance and superiority requirements. We reject this claim due to the lengthy period of time for which class certification was requested—covering all residents at Barbour Gardens at any time over a span of more than fifteen years—and the absence of generalized evidence in the record concerning the living conditions at Barbour Gardens during most of the proposed class period. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.")


Law Library Hours: July 24th to August 2nd

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5962

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

Wednesday, July 24th

  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, July 25th

  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.

Friday, July 26th

  • Middletown Law Library is closed.

Monday, July 29th

  • Middletown Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, July 30th

  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, July 31st

  • Hartford Law Library is closed.
  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, August 1st

  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Friday, August 2nd

  • Middletown Law Library is closed.


Connecticut Law Journal - July 23, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5961

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 4, for July 23, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Replacement Pages 349 Conn. 507, 508
  • Volume 349: Orders (Pages 918 - 919)
  • Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 226: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 736 - 857)
  • Volume 226: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases


Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5960

AC 47122 - In re M. S. ("This appeal, brought by the minor child, M. S., arises from the trial court’s judgment sustaining an ex parte order granting temporary custody of the child to the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, and adjudicating the child neglected. On appeal, the child challenges only the sustaining of the order of temporary custody and claims that the court erred in making that decision without finding that she was at risk of immediate physical harm. The respondent mother, Stephanie S., is not participating in this appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5959

SC20742 - State v. Honsch ("In this appeal, we must consider the extent of the state's territorial jurisdiction to prosecute a defendant when the defendant disputes whether the crime occurred within Connecticut's geographical boundaries. The defendant, Robert Honsch, appeals from his conviction of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court incorrectly denied his pretrial motion to dismiss for lack of territorial jurisdiction because the state had failed to establish that the murder occurred in Connecticut, (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the murder, and (3) the trial court erroneously declined his request to provide the jury with an instruction on fingerprint evidence. We disagree with all three of the defendant's claims and affirm the trial court's judgment.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5957

AC45890 - Iadanza v. Toor ("This appeal arises from a stipulated judgment in an action by the plaintiff landlord, Cosmo Iadanza, against the defendant tenant, Mohammed Toor, for breach of contract, serious nonpayment of rent, and fraudulent misrepresentation relative to the defendant's tenancy at the residential property known as 501 Woodbine Road in Stamford (property). According to the stipulation, judgment of possession entered in favor of the plaintiff 'with a final stay of execution based upon' several conditions pertaining to an option the defendant had to purchase the property. The conditions established, among other things, that the defendant would be able to purchase the property for $950,000, provided that he deposited 'with [his counsel] in trust pursuant to the terms of agreement the sum of $47,500 by August 26 [2022] [at] 4 p.m. eastern daylight time' and then satisfied certain conditions with respect to obtaining financing and closing by a date certain, and that time was of the essence 'for all actions and requirements in the stipulated agreement.' They further established that '[f]ailing to make the deposit will null and void the defendant's right to purchase the property, and the plaintiff may immediately file an affidavit stating this fact and immediately obtain a summary process execution for possession without any additional court hearings.'

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly ordered a summary process execution for possession to issue after the defendant failed to make the $47,500 deposit in accordance with the terms of the stipulated judgment. The defendant claims that the plaintiff materially breached the stipulated judgment prior to the August 26, 2022 deadline and that, consequently, the defendant's obligation to make the deposit by that time had been excused. As such, he maintains that the plaintiff was not entitled to the execution. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court ordering the summary process execution.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5958

AC 45329 - Wald v. Cortland-Wald ("The defendant, Anne Louise Cortland-Wald, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Francis Mark Wald, and from certain postjudgment financial orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) deviated from the child support guidelines in entering its support orders, (2) found that the defendant had an annual earning capacity of $60,000, (3) modified pendente lite support orders, (4) failed to adjudicate the plaintiff in contempt for violating the court’s pendente lite and automatic orders, (5) failed to award reasonable attorney’s fees after adjudicating the plaintiff in contempt for failing to comply with discovery orders, (6) failed to award attorney’s fees to the defendant to prosecute her appeal, and (7) issued a postjudgment modification of the dissolution judgment. We conclude that the court improperly deviated from the child support guidelines to calculate its child support orders and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the court and remand the matter for a new trial on all financial orders. We affirm the judgment of the court as to the defendant’s motions for contempt.")

AC 46247 - Trent v. Trent ("In this postdissolution matter, the plaintiff, David L. Trent, appeals from certain judgments of the trial court stemming from two postdissolution motions filed by him and one postdissolution motion filed by the defendant, Katia R. Trent. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) granted the defendant’s motion for contempt, which alleged that the plaintiff failed to pay his share of child care expenses, (2) denied his motion for contempt, which claimed that the defendant failed to comply with a discovery order, and (3) denied his motion to modify alimony and child support. We agree with the plaintiff on his first and third claims but disagree with him on his second claim. Accordingly, we reverse the court’s judgment of contempt and the judgment denying the plaintiff’s motion for modification as to alimony and child support. We affirm the judgment denying the defendant’s motion for contempt.")

AC 45654 - Nedder v. Nedder ("In this appeal from a marital dissolution judgment, the defendant, Lauren E. Nedder, claims that the trial court erred in (1) ordering that the plaintiff, Ernest J. Nedder, use specific assets to pay certain expenses and debt, (2) failing to assign a value to a quasi-pension account prior to dividing the parties’ property, and (3) fashioning its alimony orders. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5956

AC46052 - Angel C. v. Commissioner of Correction ("Upon a grant of certification to appeal, the petitioner, Angel C., appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in precluding him from presenting the testimony of his adult children at the habeas trial, and (2) improperly concluded that he had not established that his trial counsel was ineffective for having failed to contact and call his children as witnesses at the underlying criminal trial. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5955

SC20927 - Centrix Management Co., LLC v. Fosberg ("When a consumer contract or lease includes a unilateral attorney's fees provision benefitting the commercial party, a consumer who successfully prosecutes or defends an action based on the contract is entitled as a matter of law to attorney's fees, and 'the size of the attorney's fee awarded to the consumer shall be based as far as practicable upon the terms governing the size of the fee for the commercial party.' General Statutes § 42-150bb. In this appeal, the plaintiff landlord, Centrix Management Co., LLC, challenges the trial court's award of reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $3500, following the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant tenant, Donald W. Fosberg. The plaintiff contends that, because doing so would be 'practicable' pursuant to § 42-150bb, the court had discretion to award the defendant only up to $750, which was the maximum amount of attorney's fees that the plaintiff could have recovered pursuant to the terms of the lease agreement. The defendant responds that the plaintiff's claim rests on an overly narrow construction of two key statutory terms in § 42-150bb, 'based . . . upon' and 'practicable.' Consistent with the equitable purpose of the statute, the defendant contends, the trial court had discretion to award him reasonable attorney's fees in excess of $750. Although we conclude that trial courts have discretion to award a prevailing consumer reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to § 42-150bb when the court determines that it is not practicable to base the award upon the contractual terms governing the commercial party's recovery, in the present case, the trial court did not make this threshold determination. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's award of attorney's fees and remand the case with direction to conduct a new hearing on the defendant's motion for attorney's fees consistent with this opinion.")


Law Library Hours: July 18th to July 26th

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5954

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

Thursday, July 18th

  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.

Friday, July 19th

  • Bridgeport Law Library will be open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library is closed.
  • New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
  • Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.

Monday, July 22nd

  • Middletown Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, July 23rd

  • Danbury Law Library closes at 4:15 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, July 24th

  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library closes at 3:30.

Thursday, July 25th

  • Middletown Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Friday, July 26th

  • Middletown Law Library is closed.


Habeas Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5953

SC20727 - Tatum v. Commissioner of Correction ("'[M]istaken eyewitness identification testimony is by far the leading cause of wrongful convictions.' State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218, 249–50, 49 A.3d 705 (2012). Recognizing the developments in the cognitive science of eyewitness identification, this court has recently established new rules for cases in which eyewitness identification evidence is proffered. Specifically, in Guilbert, we determined that "expert testimony on eyewitness identification is admissible upon a determination by the trial court that the expert is qualified and the proffered testimony is relevant and will aid the jury." Id., 226. In doing so, we overruled earlier decisions from this court, which held that the factors affecting eyewitness identification were within the knowledge of an average juror. See id., 226, 229, 251–53. We reasoned that our prior case law was "out of step with the widespread judicial recognition that eyewitness identifications are potentially unreliable in a variety of ways unknown to the average juror. This [broad-based] judicial recognition tracks a near perfect scientific consensus. The extensive and comprehensive scientific research, as reflected in hundreds of peer reviewed studies and meta-analyses, convincingly demonstrates the fallibility of eyewitness identification testimony and pinpoints an array of variables that are most likely to lead to a mistaken identification." (Footnotes omitted.) Id., 234–36. We also noted that a trial court retains discretion to provide "focused and informative" jury instructions on the fallibility of eyewitness identification evidence. Id., 257–58. Four years later, in State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, 582 U.S. 922, 137 S. Ct. 2263, 198 L. Ed. 2d 713 (2017), we further developed protections against inherently suggestive identifications. In doing so, we overruled this court's 1991 holding in this petitioner's direct appeal related to a first-time, in-court cross-racial eyewitness identification. See id., 434–36 (overruling in part State v. Tatum, 219 Conn. 721, 595 A.2d 322 (1991)). We concluded that "any [first-time] in-court identification by a witness who would have been unable to reliably identify the [petitioner] in a nonsuggestive out-of-court procedure constitutes a procedural due process violation." (Emphasis in original.) State v. Dickson, supra, 426 n.11. The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the principles this court set forth in Guilbert and Dickson apply retroactively to the petitioner's case on collateral review. We conclude that the principles articulated in Dickson do. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - July 16, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5952

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 3, for July 16, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 349: Orders (Pages 918 - 918)
  • Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 226: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 651 - 736)
  • Volume 226: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices


Administrative Appeal Supreme Court - Slip Opinion

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5951

  • SC20805 - The William W. Backus Hospital v. Stonington (Tax appeal; application for tax exemption "We conclude, therefore, that the personal property owned by the plaintiff and used 'incident to the rendering of health care services’ at the rehabilitation facility, which is located in a suite, subleased to the plaintiff, of a building that Hartford Healthcare acquired by lease, is rendered taxable by §12-66a, even if otherwise exempt from taxation under §12-81 (7) or (16). General Statutes § 12-66a. Accordingly, the trial court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.")


Landlord/Tenant Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5948

SC20787 - Chabad Lubavitch of Western & Southern New England, Inc. v. Shemtov ("This appeal requires us to determine the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate before a Jewish rabbinical court called a 'Bais Din' to resolve a dispute between the parties concerning the possession of certain real property. The defendants Rabbi Moshe Shemtov, Chabad of Stamford, Inc., and Gan Yeladim of Stamford, Inc., appeal from the trial court's judgment granting possession of a commercial property to the plaintiff, Chabad Lubavitch of Western and Southern New England, Inc. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in failing to enforce an arbitration agreement that the plaintiff was bound by and refused to honor. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5950

AC45666 - Haworth Country Club, LLC v. United Bank ("The plaintiff, Haworth Country Club, LLC, individually and derivatively on behalf of Newberry Village Holdings, LLC (NVH), appeals, following the granting of a motion to strike, from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, United Bank, on all counts of the plaintiff's third amended complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that, in ruling on the motion to strike, the court (1) did not apply the proper legal standard, (2) erred in concluding that the plaintiff was not entitled to bring a cause of action against the defendant, and that the plaintiff's status as a noncustomer of the defendant is dispositive as to preclude any allegations of liability against the defendant, (3) erred in concluding that the plaintiff's allegations that the defendant violated banking statutes and regulations regarding what a bank is required to do before opening an account for a customer are not allegations of conduct offensive to public policy under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and that General Statutes § 35-1 is inapplicable to the plaintiff's claims, and (4) improperly failed to address that the defendant, as of the date of service of this action, was on notice that the subject bank account had been opened under an improper and fictitious name and that the money in the account was owned by another party. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5949

AC46260 - State v. Jean-Baptiste ("The defendant, Oles Jean-Baptiste, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124 (a) (1), assault of public safety personnel in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167c (a) (1), and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that his sixth amendment right to counsel was violated by the trial court's alleged inadequate response to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5947

AC46943 - 914 North Colony, LLC v. 99 West, LLC ("The plaintiff, 914 North Colony, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its summary process action against the defendant, 99 West, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff had reinstated the tenancy by accepting the defendant's tendered payments after service of the notice to quit, despite the fact that the notice to quit included a use and occupancy disclaimer. We disagree with the plaintiff's characterization of the court's judgment and conclude that the court properly found that the plaintiff's actions rendered the notice to quit equivocal, thereby depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the summary process action. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Land Use Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5945

SC20808, SC20810, SC20811 - 131 Beach Road, LLC v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission ("These consolidated appeals challenge the judgment of the trial court reversing the decision of the defendant, the Town Plan and Zoning Commission of the Town of Fairfield (commission), on the two part application filed by the plaintiff, 131 Beach Road, LLC, to construct a forty unit, multifamily affordable housing development near Fairfield's Old Post Road Historic District (historic district). The commission denied the first part of the plaintiff's application, which sought a zone text amendment to permit multifamily affordable housing units within the residence A zone district. It approved the second part of the plaintiff's application, which sought a site plan and a certificate of zoning compliance, but imposed two conditions on its approval, one of which limited the height of the proposed building and thereby reduced the number of affordable housing units. The trial court sustained the plaintiff's zoning appeals pursuant to General Statutes § 8-30g (g), concluding in relevant part that the commission had failed (1) to consider the zone text amendment in light of the requirements of § 8-30g, and (2) to satisfy its statutory burden of establishing that the height condition was necessary to protect a substantial public interest that outweighed the need for affordable housing in Fairfield. We agree with the trial court that the commission improperly imposed a height condition on its approval of the plaintiff's site plan and certificate of zoning compliance, and improperly denied the zone text amendment insofar as it applied to the proposed development at issue in this appeal, but we disagree that the commission improperly denied the zone text amendment insofar as it applied to the entire residence A zone district.

. . . .

The judgment is reversed with respect to the trial court's determination concerning the commission's denial of a zone text amendment applicable to the residence A zone district and the case is remanded to the trial court with direction to remand to the commission and to order the commission to grant the plaintiff's application for a zone text amendment limited solely to the subject property; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.")


Attorney Discipline Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5946

SC20751 - Epright v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. ("This case requires us to consider whether, under Practice Book § 13-4, an attorney may be sanctioned for engaging in ex parte communications with an expert witness who has been retained and disclosed by the adverse party for the purpose of providing testimony in litigation. The defendant in error, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual), appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's order imposing sanctions on the plaintiff in error, Brignole, Bush & Lewis, LLC (firm), the law firm representing the plaintiff, Jacqueline Epright, in the underlying underinsured motorist action brought by Epright against Liberty Mutual. The trial court imposed monetary sanctions after finding that attorneys with the firm engaged in impermissible ex parte communications with Liberty Mutual's expert witness, James Depuy, an orthopedic surgeon retained and disclosed by Liberty Mutual to provide testimony regarding damages and causation. The trial court determined that the firm's communication with Depuy was a clear violation of the rules of expert discovery set forth in § 13-4. The Appellate Court reversed the order of the trial court, concluding that § 13-4 does not clearly prohibit ex parte communication between an attorney and an opposing party's disclosed expert witness. We agree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


New OLR Reports

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5944

The Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research has recently published the following new reports:

Beverage Container Redemption Fraud - 2024-R-0055 - Describes (1) Connecticut’s law prohibiting interstate beverage container redemption fraud and (2) similar laws in other states. This report updates information in OLR Report 2013-R-0006.

Noise Restrictions for Motor Vehicles - 2024-R-0106 - Provides information on the maximum allowable decibel levels and other noise-related restrictions for motor vehicles under state law. This report updates OLR Report 2009-R-0205.

Regulation of Cottage Food Businesses in the Northeast - 2024-R-0087 - Describes (1) Connecticut’s cottage food licensing regulations; (2) the legislative history of Connecticut’s annual gross sales (revenue) cap and requirement that sellers directly deliver goods to customers; and (3) New York’s and the other New England states’ sales thresholds and limitations on sales venues and delivery methods.

Table on Penalties - 2024-R-0113 - Provides information on penalties for different crime classifications, violations and infractions.

Service Animals and Registration - 2024-R-0090 - Which animals qualify as service animals under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Connecticut laws protecting their use in public places? Do these laws require the animals to be registered? This report updates, in part, OLR Issue Brief 2018-R-0199. It does not address other related federal laws (e.g., the Fair Housing Act and Air Carrier Access Act).

Minors Voting in Municipal Elections - 2024-R-0080 - What states authorize minors to vote in municipal elections? Under what authority have municipalities implemented these provisions? Has Connecticut considered any recent legislation that would lower the voting age?