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.
SC20555 - State vs. Hinds (Conviction of murder, carrying a dangerous weapon; “Following a jury trial, the defendant, Metese Hinds, was
convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) and carrying
a dangerous weapon in violation of General Statutes § 53-206 (a). On appeal, he
claims that two instances of prosecutorial impropriety, which occurred during
the state’s closing and rebuttal arguments, deprived him of his due process
right to a fair trial. We disagree and affirm the judgment of conviction.”)
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 9, for August 30, 2022 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 344: Connecticut Reports (Pages 464 - 565)
- Volume 344: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 214: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 604 - 786)
- Volume 214: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Supreme Court Pending Cases
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
Tuesday, August 30th
- Bridgeport Law Library is closes at 2:00 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library closes from 12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closes at 3:30 p.m.
Wednesday, August 31st
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
Thursday, September 1st
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
Friday, September 2nd
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library closes at 12:15 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
SC20554 - State v. Freeman (“The sole issue on appeal is whether the prosecution of the
defendant was time barred by the five year statute of limitations set forth in
General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 54-193 (b)1 on the ground that the state
failed to establish that the warrant for the defendant’s arrest was executed
without unreasonable delay. See State v. Swebilius, 325 Conn. 793, 802,
159 A.3d 1099 (2017); State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443, 451, 521 A.2d
1034 (1987). We conclude that the state failed to produce sufficient evidence
to establish that the arrest warrant was executed with due diligence, and,
accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)
AC44537 - Konover Development Corp. v. Waterbury Omega, LLC (“The defendant Waterbury Omega, LLC appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application for a prejudgment remedy in favor of the plaintiff, Konover Development Corporation, upon a finding of probable cause that the defendant had breached an oral agreement for the plaintiff's procurement, management and accounting of building/rooftop wireless telecommunications agreements on behalf of the defendant. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff had established probable cause in light of its defenses that enforcement of the oral agreement was barred by (1) General Statutes § 20-325a, (2) the rule against perpetuities, and (3) the statute of frauds. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)
AC44427 - State v. Sweet (“The defendant, Derek R. Sweet, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124 (a) (2), and one count of identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d (a).On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict of guilty of larceny in the third degree and (2) the court erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence.We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction.”)
AC44622 - Fairlake Capital, LLC v. Lathouris ("The defendant Number Six, LLC (Number Six), appeals from the order of the trial court denying its motion to discharge a notice of lis pendens (motion to discharge) recorded by the plaintiff, Fairlake Capital, LLC. Number Six also appeals from the order of the court denying its motion to lift a discretionary stay in the underlying proceedings to allow it to pursue the motion to discharge. Our disposition of this appeal hinges on two issues that concern the denial of the motion to discharge. First, as a threshold matter implicating our subject matter jurisdiction, we must determine whether the denial of the motion to discharge is a final judgment for appeal purposes. If we answer that question in the affirmative, the second issue is whether the court abused its discretion by denying the motion to discharge, without holding a hearing and adjudicating the merits of the motion in accordance with General Statutes §§ 52-325a and 52-325b, solely on the procedural ground that the discretionary stay was in place. Number Six claims that the denial of the motion to discharge is a final judgment and that the court improperly denied the motion to discharge on the basis of the discretionary stay. The plaintiff, on the other hand, maintains that (1) no final judgment exists, or, alternatively, (2) the court properly denied the motion to discharge on the basis of the discretionary stay. We conclude that (1) the denial of the motion to discharge is a final judgment for appeal purposes and (2) the court abused its discretion when it relied on the discretionary stay to deny Number Six's motion to discharge. We further conclude that our resolution of Number Six's claim concerning its motion to discharge necessarily resolves the question of whether the court should have lifted the discretionary stay to permit a hearing on that motion. . . .
The judgment is reversed as to the denial of Number Six's motion to discharge the notice of lis pendens and the case is remanded with direction to lift the discretionary stay for the purpose of holding a prompt hearing and adjudicating the merits of the motion to discharge in accordance with General Statutes §§ 52-325a and 52-325b and consistent with this opinion.")
- AC44622 Concurrence - Fairlake Capital, LLC v. Lathouris
AC44564 - Lending Home Funding Corp. v. REI Holdings, LLC ("The defendant Traditions Oil Group, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to reargue/reconsider the court's denial of its motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Lending Home Funding Corporation. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court incorrectly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to open the judgment of strict foreclosure on the ground that title already had vested in the plaintiff, thereby rendering the defendant's motion to open moot. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings.")
AC42832 - Mention v. Kensington Square Apartments (Housing code enforcement; "In this housing code enforcement action, the defendant, Kensington Square Apartments, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Regina Mention. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim that predated the filing of her complaint with the New Haven Livable City Initiative (Initiative), (2) the court improperly concluded as a matter of law that the defendant violated title V of the New Haven Code of Ordinances (housing code), and (3) the housing code is unconstitutionally vague. The plaintiff also challenges the judgment of the trial court, by way of a cross appeal, claiming that the court erred in calculating rent abatement based on her share of the subsidized rent, rather than the full market rent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
SC20498 - Daley v. Kashmanian (Torts; General Statutes § 52-557n; Whether defendant entitled to governmental immunity for negligent operation of motor vehicle in course of conducting surveillance; "The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether a police officer who was involved in a crash while using an automobile to perform surveillance during an investigation of possible criminal activity was engaged in a discretionary act for purposes of governmental immunity under the common law or General Statutes § 52-557n (a) (2) (B). The plaintiff, Devonte Daley, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing in part the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the plaintiff after a jury trial, in this personal injury action against the defendants, Zachary Kashmanian, a police officer, and his employer, the city of Hartford (city). See Daley v. Kashmanian, 193 Conn. App. 171, 190, 219 A.3d 499 (2019). On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that Kashmanian's actions during his surveillance of the plaintiff using a "soft car," which is an unmarked vehicle lacking police equipment, were discretionary acts for purposes of governmental immunity. We conclude that Kashmanian's operation of the soft car, including following the statutory rules of the road; see General Statutes § 14-212 et seq.; was a ministerial function and that the defendants, therefore, were not entitled to discretionary act immunity for Kashmanian's negligent operation of the soft car during the surveillance operation. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.")
The 2022 edition of our research guide on Dog Law in Connecticut has been added to our research guides web page. There are sections on control of dogs, cruelty to dogs, dog injuries, dogs as service animals, dogs as pets, and comfort and support dogs as witnesses.