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.
AC44518, AC44519 - In re Amanda L. (Termination of parental rights; (§
17a-112 (j) (3) (B) and (k)); “Specifically, the respondents claim that
the termination of their parental rights was unconstitutional, unlawful, and
fraudulent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 22, for November 30, 2021 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 339: Connecticut Reports (Pages 747 - 860)
- Volume 339: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 208: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 816 - 889)
- Volume 208: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 906 - 908)
- Volume 208: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
AC43830 - Connex Credit Union v. Thibodeau (Repossession and subsequent sale of a motor vehicle in a consumer goods secured transaction. "The defendant debtor, Michelle M. Thibodeau, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff secured party, Connex Credit Union, in this breach of contract action. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in determining that the plaintiff (1) provided notice of the right to an accounting as required by article 9 of the UCC, (2) provided a telephone number from which the defendant could learn the full amount she would need to pay in order to redeem her vehicle as required by article 9 of the UCC, and (3) satisfied the requirements of RISFA regarding the repossession and sale of a motor vehicle. On the basis of these claims, the defendant argues that the plaintiff was precluded from recovering any deficiency upon resale due to its alleged failure to adhere to the statutory requirements. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC44294 -Nelson v. Commissioner of Correction (“He now appeals from the judgment of the habeas court, Bhatt, J., denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the habeas court erred by determining (1) that habeas counsel’s performance was not deficient and (2) that his withdrawal with prejudice of a prior habeas corpus petition was knowing and voluntary. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)
AC43081 - State v. Andres C. (Sexual assault in third degree; risk of injury to child; motion to allow introduction of uncharged misconduct evidence; claim that trial court improperly admitted uncharged misconduct evidence; reviewability of claim that trial court erred in permitting state to present uncharged misconduct evidence; "The defendant, Andres C., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a court trial, of sexual assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-72a (a) (1) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly admitted uncharged misconduct evidence, (2) his right to a fair trial was violated by prosecutorial impropriety, (3) the court improperly denied him access to the victim's journals, and (4) his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1983), were violated. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Please note: Bridgeport Law Library is closed until further notice.
Wednesday, November 24th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Stamford Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
Thursday, November 25th
- All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed for the holiday.
Friday, November 26th
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- Hartford Law Library is closed.
- New Britain Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Stamford Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
See our regularly scheduled hours.
SC20268 - State v. Hughes (Manslaughter; self-defense; juror misconduct; whether there was sufficient evidence to disprove defendant's claim of self defense; "Following a jury trial, the defendant, Dante Alexander Hughes, was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55a, after the jury found him not guilty of murder but rejected his claim of self-defense. In a subsequent trial to the court, the defendant was found guilty of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 in connection with the same incident. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, any of the elements of self-defense because the state failed to present affirmative evidence that discredited the defendant’s testimonial account of the incident. The defendant also claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct, specifically, a juror’s consultation of a dictionary definition of ‘‘manslaughter,’’ because the court applied an incorrect legal standard and misallocated the burden of proof. We affirm the judgment of conviction.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 21, for November 23, 2021 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 339: Connecticut Reports (Pages 528 - 747)
- Volume 339: Orders (Pages 916 - 920)
- Volume 339: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 208: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 731 - 816)
- Volume 208: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
AC42495 - ASPIC, LLC v. Poitier ("In this debt collection action, the plaintiff, ASPIC, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Brack G. Poitier. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that it cannot hold the defendant personally liable for amounts due on promissory notes entered into by the plaintiff's predecessor in interest, Wendell Harp, because Harp breached his fiduciary duties to the defendant, who was Harp's general partner in certain limited partnerships. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")
AC44704 - Brookstone Homes, LLC v. Merco Holdings, LLC (Application for discharge of lis pendens, breach of contract; "This joint appeal was filed in two trial court cases to challenge the trial court's order in one case granting an application to discharge the lis pendens filed against multiple properties. We ordered the parties to file memoranda to address (1) whether this appeal should be dismissed as moot as to the order granting the application to discharge the lis pendens because that order has been recorded on the land records and (2) whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of a final judgment as to the portion of the appeal taken as to the underlying breach of contract case that is still pending before the trial court. Having considered the memorandum submitted by the appellants, we dismiss the appeal.")
AC43420 - Hartford v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (Employment discrimination; whether trial court properly upheld decision of defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities that employee had proven intentional discrimination based on ancestry by plaintiff employer; "The plaintiff, City of Hartford Police Department (city), appeals from the judgment of the trial court affirming a decision of the named defendant, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), which concluded that the city had discriminated against the defendant Khoa Phan on the basis of his Asian and Vietnamese ancestry by terminating Phan's employment as a probationary police officer. The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court improperly concluded that substantial evidence supported the commission's determination that the city intentionally had discriminated against Phan. We conclude that the substantial evidence in the record does not support a determination of intentional discrimination by the city and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
AC43902 - Torres v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim of ineffective assistance due to certain prejudicial prior misconduct evidence being admitted at trial; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its
discretion in denying his petition for certification on the ground that he
failed to demonstrate that he had been denied the effective assistance of
counsel in his underlying criminal trial. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss
the appeal.”)
SC20432 - Grabe v. Hokin ("The issue before us in this appeal is whether the trial court correctly determined that the enforcement of a prenuptial agreement executed by the plaintiff, Laura Grabe, and the defendant, Justin Hokin, was not unconscionable at the time of the dissolution of their marriage. Shortly before the parties' marriage in 2010, they executed a prenuptial agreement in which each party agreed, in the event of a dissolution action, to waive any claim to the other's separate property, as defined in the agreement, or to any form of support from the other, including alimony. The agreement also provided that a party who unsuccessfully challenged the enforceability of the agreement would pay the attorney's fees of the other party. In 2016, the plaintiff brought this action seeking dissolution of the marriage and enforcement of the prenuptial agreement. The defendant filed a cross complaint in which he claimed, inter alia, that the agreement was unenforceable because it was unconscionable at the time of the dissolution under General Statutes § 46b-36g (a) (2). After a trial to the court, the court concluded that, with the exception of the attorney's fees provision, enforcement of the terms of the prenuptial agreement that the parties entered into was not unconscionable, even in light of certain events that had occurred during the marriage. Accordingly, the trial court rendered judgment dissolving the marriage and enforcing the terms of the prenuptial agreement, with the exception of the provision requiring the party who unsuccessfully challenged the enforceability of the agreement to pay the attorney's fees of the other party. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court incorrectly determined that the occurrence of the unforeseen events found by the trial court did not render the enforcement of the entire agreement unconscionable at the time of the dissolution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIII, No. 20, for November 16, 2021 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 339: Connecticut Reports (Pages 402 - 528)
- Volume 339: Orders (Pages 913 - 915)
- Volume 339: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 208: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 719 - 731)
- Volume 208: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
Please note: Bridgeport Law Library is closed until further notice.
Tuesday, November 16th
- Middletown Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
- New Haven Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
Wednesday, November 17th
- All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries will be closing at 1:00 p.m.
Thursday, November 18th
- Danbury Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
See our regularly scheduled hours.
SC20535 - Larmel v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co. (Accidental failure of suit statute; whether judgment rendered after mandatory arbitration is "Trial on the merits" that bars plaintiff from utilizing accidental failure of suit statute; whether plaintiff's failure to request trial de novo following entry of arbitrator's decision was "Matter of form" under accidental failure of suit statute; "This certified appeal requires us to consider whether a case that results in a judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant following a plaintiff's failure to demand a trial de novo after an arbitration proceeding pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 52-549z has been "tried on its merits," thus barring a subsequent action under the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes § 52-592 (a). The Appellate Court's decision in the present case answered this question in the affirmative, and, as a result, that court remanded the case to the trial court with direction to render judgment in favor of the defendant, Metro North Commuter Railroad Company, on a claim of negligence brought by the plaintiff, Phyllis Larmel, that had previously been the subject of mandatory arbitration in a prior civil action. Larmel v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co., 200 Conn. App. 660, 661–62, 240 A.3d 1056 (2020). In the present appeal, the plaintiff claims that her first action was never "tried on its merits" because there was no formal trial in the first action and that, as a result, the Appellate Court's conclusion was in error. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")
The Office of the Probate Court Administrator has prepared its 2021 Legislative Summary of Laws affecting the Connecticut Probate Court system. Each public act summarized has a link to the full-text of the act.
AC42530 - Mase v. Riverview Realty Associates, LLC ("The defendant Riverview Realty Associates, LLC, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Amy Mase. The defendant claims that (1) the court erred in denying its motion to dismiss the foreclosure action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to provide notice of default and acceleration in accordance with the terms of the subject note and mortgage, (2) the judgment of strict foreclosure was grossly defective for several reasons, including but not limited to, the court's failure to determine the fair market value of the subject premises and the amount of the debt, and (3) the court's appointment of a receiver was improper for several reasons. We dismiss the appeal because it was not taken from a final judgment.")