AC46598 - State v. Miller (“The defendant, Jesse Lee Miller, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-59 (a) (1), and assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly denied his motion to suppress, (2) the court erroneously admitted certain expert testimony, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC46542 - Cator v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion by denying him certification to appeal from its judgment (1) dismissing the first and third counts of his operative petition, which alleged due process violations and ineffective assistance of trial counsel, respectively; (2) rejecting his claim that he was improperly excluded from a critical stage of the proceedings during his criminal trial; (3) concluding that he had failed to establish that his first habeas counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to plead and prove a Brady claim and that he had been excluded from a critical stage of his criminal trial; and (4) determining that he had failed to demonstrate that his second and third habeas counsel were ineffective for failing to plead and prove the aforementioned ineffectiveness claims against his first habeas counsel. Although we agree with the petitioner that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying him certification to appeal, we affirm the court’s judgment on its merits.”)

AC46727 - Revels v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that his right to the effective assistance of counsel was not violated when his trial counsel (1) conducted inadequate cross-examinations, (2) failed to introduce into evidence the petitioner’s cell phone records, and (3) failed to consult or present experts on false confessions and crime scene reconstruction. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.)

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

AC 46133 - Lafferty v. Jones ("In these consolidated appeals, the defendants Alex Emric Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC, appeal from the judgments of the trial court rendered following jury verdicts returned in favor of the plaintiffs in the underlying consolidated tort actions arising out of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) defaulted them as a sanction for violating certain discovery orders and a protective order, (2) construed the effect of the default to relieve the plaintiffs of the burden to prove the extent of their damages, (3) restricted the scope of Jones’ testimony at the hearing in damages, (4) denied their motion for a remittitur, and (5) concluded that the plaintiffs’ claim asserting a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., was legally sufficient. For the reasons that follow, we disagree with the defendants’ first, second, and fourth claims, and deem the defendants’ third claim to be abandoned as inadequately briefed. We agree, however, with the defendants’ fifth claim. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

The 2024 edition of our research guide on Modification of Judgments in Family Matters has been added to our research guides web page.

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• 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.

Thursday, December 5th

• Hartford Law Library closes at 11:30 a.m.
• Putnam Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.

Friday, December 6th

• Hartford Law Library is closed.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library is closed from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• Torrington Law Library will be closed from 11:15 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Monday, December 9th

• New London Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, December 10th

• New London Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Wednesday, December 11th

• Putnam Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.

Thursday, December 12th

• New Britain Law Library opens at 10:30
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

Friday, December 13th

• Middletown Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
• Rockville Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library is closed.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

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

Summary of State Gun Laws - 2024-R-0163 - Summarizes Connecticut’s gun laws. This report updates OLR Report 2020-R-0025.

Medicaid Eligibility - 2024-R-0174 - Describes current Medicaid income eligibility requirements in Connecticut. It updates OLR Report 2022-R-0066.

State Law That Governs Local Board of Education Budget Preparation, Approval, and Modification - 2024-R-0176 - Summarizes the state law that governs local board of education (BOE) budget preparation, approval, and modification at the local level, including any oversight mechanisms.

Updated: Fixed Property Tax Assessments Under CGS § 12-65b - 2024-R-0103 - Summarizes CGS § 12-65b, as amended by PA 24-143, § 6 (effective October 1, 2024), which allows municipalities to fix the personal and real property (including air space) tax assessments for a range of development projects. This report updates OLR Report 2022-R-0002.

OLR Backgrounder: A Guide to Connecticut's Personal Income Tax - 2024-R-0130 - Provides an overview of Connecticut’s personal income tax, including the tax rates, exemptions, credit amounts, and thresholds in effect for the 2024 tax year. It updates OLR Report 2022-R-0108.

Credit Reporting & Utility Service Customer's Delinquency - 2024-R-0179 - Can utility companies report to credit rating agencies information about a residential customer’s delinquency? This report updates OLR Report 2017-R-0183.

Issue Brief: CGS § 8-30g The Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Procedure - 2024-R-0147 - What is the affordable housing land use appeals procedure and what is its purpose? What types of developments trigger the law’s protection and under what circumstances are municipalities subject to it? What types of dwelling units count toward the 10%? When is a municipality eligible for a moratorium? How can municipalities defend an appeal brought under the procedure? This report updates OLR Report 2022-R-0254.

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

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 23, for December 3, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 350: Connecticut Reports (Pages 692 - 753)
• Volume 350: Orders (Pages 922 - 924)
• Volume 350: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 229: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 371 - 392)
• Volume 229: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices

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

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

Tuesday, November 26th

• Hartford Law Library is closed.
• Torrington Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.

Wednesday, November 27th

• New London Law Library is closed.

Thursday, November 28th

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

Friday, November 29th

• Danbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
• Hartford Law Library is closed.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
• New Haven Law Library is closed.
• New London Law Library is closed.
• Putnam Law Library is closed.
• Stamford Law Library is closed.
• Waterbury Law Library is closed.

Monday, December 2nd

• New Britain Law Library closes at 1:30 p.m.

Tuesday, December 3rd

• Danbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
• Waterbury Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.

Wednesday, December 4th

• Danbury Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
• New Britain Law Library closes at 12:15 p.m.

Friday, December 6th

• New Britain Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.

• Posted in:
• Library Notices

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 22, for November 26, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

Table of Contents
Volume 350: Connecticut Reports (Pages 557 - 692)
Volume 350: Orders (Pages 918 - 921)
Volume 350: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
Volume 229: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 239 - 371)
Volume 229: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
Volume 229: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
Miscellaneous Notices
Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

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

AC 47367 - In re Jaelynn K.-M. ("The respondent mother, Jessica K., appeals following the trial court’s judgments terminating her parental rights with respect to her children, twins Jayden and Jaelynn. On appeal, the respondent claims that the trial court violated her due process rights under the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution with respect to the termination trial in (1) constructively depriving her of her right to counsel, (2) denying her assigned counsel’s request for a continuance, and (3) finding that the respondent and her counsel had adequate notice of the proceeding. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46477 - Robinson v. V. D. ("The defendant, V. D., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his special motion to dismiss the underlying civil action pursuant to General Statutes § 52-196a, our state's anti-SLAPP statute. The civil action filed by the plaintiffs, Michael Robinson and Mary Robinson, seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief for defamation, invasion of privacy by false light, statutory and common-law vexatious litigation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant claims that (1) the court improperly denied his special motion to dismiss the action on the ground that his alleged conduct did not relate to an exercise of a protected right in connection with a matter of public concern and, thus, fell outside the scope of § 52-196a, and, (2) even if he is not entitled to a dismissal of the action pursuant to § 52-196a, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the defendant is entitled to absolute immunity under the litigation privilege for his alleged conduct, all of which occurred in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. In addition to disputing the defendant's claims, the plaintiffs raise as an alternative ground for affirming the denial of the special motion to dismiss that § 52-196a violates both the state and federal constitutions. We conclude that the question of whether the plaintiffs' action is barred by absolute immunity under the litigation privilege implicates the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and, thus, must be considered prior to addressing the merits of the special motion to dismiss. We agree with the defendant that, with the exception of those counts sounding in vexatious litigation, the complaint is barred by absolute immunity. With respect to the remaining vexatious litigation counts, we affirm in part and reverse in part the court's decision to deny the special motion to dismiss, we reject the plaintiffs' alternative ground for affirmance, and we remand the matter for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.")

AC46645 - Vu v. N. L. ("The plaintiff, Nhan Vu, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open the judgment of dismissal rendered in favor of the self-represented defendant, N. L. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to open. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC45710 - State ex rel. Dunn v. Burton (“On appeal, the defendant raises a number of claims, which we distill to the following: (1) the court lacked jurisdiction over the verified petition filed by Jeremiah Dunn, the chief animal control officer of the plaintiff, to vest temporary custody of the goats with the department, (2) the court improperly denied her motion to suppress, which attacked the process by which the warrant to search her property and seize the goats was issued pursuant to General Statutes (Supp. 2022) § 22-329a (b), (3) she was ‘‘denied due process when she was not allowed to present [her] motion to suppress for adjudication,’’ (4) she was entitled to notice and a hearing prior to the seizure of her goats pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-341, (5) the court improperly determined that the goats were subjected to neglect and cruel treatment, (6) the court improperly determined that the defendant failed to comply with its order to relinquish ownership of the goats by April 16, 2021, or pay a surety or cash bond in the amount of $32,000 by that date, (7) § 22-329a is unconstitutional on its face and as applied in this case, and (8) the court improperly dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim on the ground that the claims raised in the counterclaim were barred by either sovereign immunity or the prior pending action doctrine. We affirm the judgments of the court.”)

AC46414 - State v. Pringle (Practice Book § 43-22 motion to correct an illegal sentence; assault 1^st degree, promoting prostitution 2^nd degree; possession of narcotics with intent to sell; sale of narcotics; tampering with witness; Alford Doctrine; “On appeal, he makes several arguments supporting his claim that the court improperly denied his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We dismiss the appeal as moot.”)

AC46657 - State v. Bryan (Practice Book § 43-22 motion to correct an illegal sentence; persistent dangerous felony offender; “The defendant first claims that the court erred in denying his motion because his guilty plea to being a persistent dangerous felony offender pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-402 was defective or, in the alternative, that the court should have dismissed his motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than denying it on the merits. Second, the defendant claims, for the first time on appeal, that the sentencing court improperly failed to specify which portion of his sentence was attributable to the enhancement imposed pursuant to § 53a-40. With respect to the first claim, we conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant’s claim and, accordingly, that the court should have dismissed the motion to correct. We further conclude that the defendant is not entitled to review of his unpreserved second claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with direction to dismiss the defendant’s motion to correct.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC 47605 - In re Zarirai S. ("The respondent mother, Crystal S., appeals from the judgments of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor children, Z and L. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly determined that she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of rehabilitation because (1) the court’s determination was not supported by the evidence, (2) the court impermissibly compared the parenting of the respondent with that of the children’s foster parents, and (3) the court failed to apply the proper legal standard by ‘‘add[ing] a requirement of a ‘guarantee’ that the [respondent] must be able to rehabilitate within six months.’’ We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The 2024 edition of our research guide on Postjudgment Proceedings in Connecticut Mortgage Foreclosures has been added to our research guides web page.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,