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.

Law Library Hours: February 22nd to March 1st

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5777

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

  • 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.

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.


Connecticut Law Journal - February 20, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5776

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


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5775

AC 45698 - 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.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5774

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.”)


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5773

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.")


Connecticut Law Journal - February 13, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5772

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


Law Library Hours: February 14th to February 23rd

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5771

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.


Probate Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Carey, Sean

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5770

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.”)


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5768

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.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5769

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.”)


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Greenlee, Rebecca

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5767

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.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5766

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.")



Contract Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5764

SC20803 - Stiegler v. Meriden ("The plaintiffs are three firefighters who retired during ongoing contract negotiations between their municipal employer and their union regarding a wage reopener to their collective bargaining agreement. After the effective dates of their retirements, an arbitration panel issued an interest arbitration award pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes § 7-473c of the Municipal Employee Relations Act, General Statutes § 7-460 et seq., granting all firefighters in that municipality a retroactive wage increase. The plaintiffs filed a breach of contract action, alleging, among other things, that they were entitled to a recalculation of their pension benefits to reflect the retroactive wage increase. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and rendered judgment in their favor on the breach of contract claims. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and, on the merits, that the trial court had incorrectly concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to a recalculation of their pension benefits. We conclude that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction but erroneously determined that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive a retroactive increase in their pension benefits and, therefore, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Law Library Hours: February 6th to February 16th

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5763

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

Monday, February 12th

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

Tuesday, February 13th

  • All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed due to the inclement weather.

Wednesday, February 14th

  • Bridgeport Law Library opens at 11:45 a.m.
  • Hartford Law Library is closed from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
  • New London Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, February 15th

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

Friday, February 16th

  • New London Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library is closed.


Connecticut Law Journal - February 6, 2024

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5761

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 32, for February 6, 2024 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 452 - 532)
  • Volume 348: Orders (Pages 942 - 947)
  • Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 223: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 571 - 676)
  • Volume 223: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 902)
  • Volume 223: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Medical Malpractice Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5762

SC20646 - Lynch v. State ("In this medical malpractice action arising from a therapeutic donor insemination (TDI) procedure, the named defendant, the state of Connecticut (state), appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Aaron Lynch (Aaron) and Jean-Marie Monroe-Lynch (Jean-Marie), individually and in their representative capacities as parents of their minor son, Joshua Isaac Monroe-Lynch (Joshua), and as the administrators of the estate of Shay Ashlan Monroe-Lynch (Shay). On appeal, the state contends that (1) the claims on which the plaintiffs prevailed at trial were barred by sovereign immunity, (2) Joshua and Shay did not suffer legally cognizable injuries necessary to support the trial court's award of damages, and (3) the testimony of the plaintiffs' primary causation expert was improperly admitted because it was not supported by a valid scientific methodology. The plaintiffs ask this court to resolve a split among Superior Court decisions and to recognize a cause of action for wrongful life. We conclude that it is unnecessary to reach the wrongful life issue and, finding no error, affirm the trial court's judgment.")