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.
AC 45944 - In re Poppy T.-W. ("The self-represented respondent father, Michael W., appeals from the judgment of the trial court
dismissing his motion to open a judgment previously
rendered by the court terminating his parental rights
with respect to his minor daughter, Poppy T.-W.
(Poppy). In his motion to open, the respondent alleged
that the judgment terminating his parental rights had
been procured by fraud. On appeal, the respondent
claims, inter alia, that the court improperly dismissed
his motion to open the judgment terminating his parental rights at a hearing at which he was not present due
to his incarceration in the state of Washington and was
not given an opportunity to participate remotely, such
as by telephone. We agree and reverse the judgment..")
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Wednesday, January 31st
- Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Thursday, February 1st
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
Friday, February 2nd
- Danbury Law Library closes at 2:15 p.m.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
Monday, February 5th
- Hartford Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, February 6th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 2:15 p.m.
- Hartford Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Wednesday, February 7th
- Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Thursday, February 8th
- Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library is closed.
Friday, February 9th
- Danbury Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Hartford Law Library is closed from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
SC20721 - State v. Kyle A. (Burglary first degree; criminal mischief first degree;
threatening second degree; “In the present appeal, the defendant contends that
the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not
committed plain error when it failed to give a jury instruction identifying the
crime that he allegedly intended to commit when he unlawfully entered or
remained in the residence. We conclude that, although the trial court’s
instruction did not conform to the language that this court has repeatedly
endorsed, the trial court did not commit plain error. Accordingly, we affirm
the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 31, for January 30, 2024 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 416 - 452)
- Volume 348: Orders (Pages 938 - 941)
- Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 223: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 471 - 571)
- Volume 223: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
The Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research has released its annual report on Major Issues for the Legislative Session. According to the report:
"Every year, the Office of Legislative Research (OLR) identifies and provides brief descriptions of
important issues the General Assembly may face in the upcoming session. This report does not
represent staff suggestions or recommendations. The office identifies issues based on interim
studies; research requests; non-confidential discussions with legislators, other legislative
participants, and executive branch agencies; as well as our general subject matter knowledge. We
also consult with the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) and the Legislative Commissioners’ Office (LCO)
when selecting issues. The report is organized according to the committee that has primary
jurisdiction over an issue. Because more than one committee may consider aspects of the same
issue, descriptions may overlap. Where appropriate, we provide links to OLR reports and other
documents that contain additional information."
This year's legislative session starts on February 7th.
AC46343 - Three Deer Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Johnson (“The self-represented named defendant, DeNette Johnson (Johnson), appeals following the trial court’s denial of her second motion to open a stipulated summary process judgment, rendered after she had entered into a stipulated agreement with the plaintiff, Three Deer Associates Limited Partnership, doing business as Deerfield Apartments, in connection with a summary process action commenced by the plaintiff against Johnson and her son, the defendant Eric Johnson II. On appeal, Johnson raises five claims, namely, that (1) the court improperly denied her second motion to open, (2) the court improperly failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing before acting on her second motion to open, (3) an evidentiary hearing should have been conducted to determine if she was compliant with General Statutes § 47a-39, (4) the court violated her due process rights by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing, and (5) the underlying stipulated judgment should be vacated. We affirm the judgment with respect to Johnson’s first four claims relating to the denial of her motion to open and dismiss the appeal as it pertains to her fifth claim relating to the stipulated summary process judgment.”)
AC45453 - Homebridge Financial Services, Inc. v. Jakubiec (“In this foreclosure appeal, the defendant Robyn Jakubiec, the widow of the defendant Thomas M. Jakubiec (decedent), presents a myriad of challenges in an effort to overturn the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered following the granting of a motion for summary judgment as to liability in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Freedom Mortgage Corporation. We conclude that several of the defendant’s claims are inadequately briefed, and the remainder are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for the sole purpose of setting new law days.”)
AC45969 - Twerdahl v. Wilton Public Schools (“The plaintiff, Robin Twerdahl, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following the court’s decision striking her complaint against the defendant, Wilton Public Schools, in which she claimed that she was constructively discharged from her employment with the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in granting the motion to strike filed by the defendant on the grounds that the filing of her complaint alleging age discrimination to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) was untimely and she failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. We agree that the plaintiff’s complaint to the CHRO was untimely and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC45736 - Hankerson v.
Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in
concluding that he failed to establish good cause for his late-filed petition.
In particular, the petitioner argues that his prior habeas counsel’s failure to
advise him of the statutory deadline for filing a new petition following the
withdrawal of his then pending petition constituted ineffective assistance of
counsel, which constituted good cause for the delay in filing. In light of our
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rose v. Commissioner of Correction,
348 Conn. 333, 304 A.3d 431 (2023), we conclude that the judgment of the habeas
court must be reversed, and we remand the case for a new good cause hearing.”)
SC20774 - Hassett v. Secor's Auto Center, Inc. (“In this certified appeal, we consider the propriety of a jury’s damages award for a consumer’s revocation of acceptance of a motor vehicle pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code and, in particular, General Statutes § 42a-2-711. The plaintiff, Erin C. Hassett, appeals, upon our grant of her petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court’s denial of her motion for additur and rendering judgment in accordance with the verdict against the defendant, Secor’s Auto Center, Inc. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying her motion for additur. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the Appellate Court’s judgment.”)
AC45239 - Jacques v. Jacques ("The plaintiff, Jean-Marc Jacques, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding attorney's fees to his former wife, the defendant, Muriel Jacques. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in awarding the defendant $51,641 in attorney's fees under the bad faith exception to the American rule by concluding that the underlying breach of contract action he brought against the defendant was entirely without color and brought in bad faith. In particular, he claims that the court's award was not supported by the requisite factual findings that are required under the bad faith exception. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new hearing on the defendant's motion for attorney's fees.")
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Wednesday, January 24th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 2:15 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
- New London Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
- Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Thursday, January 25th
- Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library is closed.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
Friday, January 26th
- Hartford Law Library is closed from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library opens at 2:00 p.m.
Monday, January 29th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, January 30th
- New Britain Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Wednesday, January 31st
- Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Thursday, February 1st
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Waterbury closes at 1:00 p.m.
Friday, February 2nd
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is open 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
The Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research has published several new reports:
Laws on the Use of Cameras in Child Care Facilities - 2024-R-0008 - This report answers several questions about state laws on (1) the use of cameras or video
surveillance in child care facilities and (2) other policies used to prevent child abuse in these
settings.
Connecticut's Good Samaritan Law - 2024-R-0009 - Provides a summary of Connecticut’s Good Samaritan Law. This report updates OLR report 2018-R-0227.
Pharmacy Benefit Managers - Connecticut Laws - 2024-R-0027 - Summarize Connecticut laws regulating pharmacy benefit managers (PBM). (This report updates, in
relevant part, OLR Report
2018-R-0083.)
Seat Belts on School Buses - 2024-R-0022 - This report (1) provides an overview of federal school bus seat belt requirements and the debate
over a federal school bus seat belt mandate, (2) summarizes Connecticut law on school bus seat
belts and recent legislative proposals, and (3) identifies the states with laws requiring school buses
to have seat belts.
Crumbling Foundations Legislation - 2024-R-0029 - Provides a history of Connecticut legislation intended to address crumbling concrete foundations.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXV, No. 30, for January 23, 2024 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 348: Connecticut Reports (Pages 364 - 415)
- Volume 348: Orders (Pages 936 - 938)
- Volume 348: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 223: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 362 - 471)
- Volume 223: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
- Volume 223: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Supreme Court Pending Cases
AC46488 - In re Niya B. ("The respondent mother, Erin R., appeals
from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor
of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and
Families (commissioner), terminating her parental
rights with respect to her minor child, Niya B. On
appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly
determined that she had failed to achieve a sufficient
degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of
General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i). We disagree
and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")
SC20576 - Felder v.
Commissioner of Correction (Whether federal habeas petition is a prior petition; judgment
of the Appellate Court dismissing the petitioner’s habeas petition on the
grounds it was untimely filed and there was no good cause to excuse the delay; “This certified appeal requires us to consider
whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that (1) the phrase “prior
petition,” as used in § 52-470 (d), unambiguously refers to prior state habeas
petitions and does not also include prior federal habeas petitions, and (2) the
habeas court had not abused its discretion in dismissing the petition because
the petitioner did not establish good cause to excuse the untimely filing of
his habeas petition, as required by § 52-470 (e). We agree with the Appellate
Court’s determinations and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Appellate
Court.”)
AC46206 - Roman v. A&S Innersprings USA, LLC (“In this employment discrimination action, the plaintiff, Jessica Roman, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, A&S Innersprings USA, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that (1) no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether certain claims of pregnancy discrimination were time barred, as they occurred outside the 180 day limitation period contained in General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 46a-82 (f), (2) the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on her claim that the defendant failed to rehire her on or after December 2, 2018, and (3) the continuing course of conduct doctrine did not toll the statute of limitations contained in § 46a-82 (f) with respect to any untimely claims. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC45707 - E. I. du Pont de Numours & Co. v. Chemtura Corp. (“This breach of contract case, which was commenced by the plaintiff, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), in 2014, was first tried to the trial court in 2018, after which the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, Chemtura Corporation, on the ground that DuPont failed to strictly comply with the notice provisions of an asset purchase agreement (APA) between the parties. Our Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings on the breach of contract claims. See E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Chemtura Corp., 336 Conn. 194, 218, 244 A.3d 130 (2020). Following its review of the record from the first trial and further briefing from the parties, the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court erred in rejecting its breach of contract claims as to certain fire protection systems in that it failed to determine the applicable law and apply that law to the evidence to determine whether those fire protection systems violated the Arkansas State Fire Code, and (2) the court misinterpreted the applicable federal regulations and improperly concluded that those regulations did not require the replacement of certain refrigeration units that leaked ozone depleting substances at rates exceeding the statutory threshold for several consecutive years. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC45072 - Dessa, LLC v. Riddle ("The plaintiff landlord, Dessa, LLC, commenced the underlying action against the defendants, Peter Riddle (Peter) and his son, Jonathan Riddle (Jonathan), to collect unpaid rent pursuant to a written lease agreement that was allegedly entered into between the parties. Jonathan appeals from the judgment of
the trial court finding the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages
in the amount of $11,113.06. Jonathan claims that (1) newly discovered evidence
demonstrates that the plaintiff interfered with the court's ability to be
impartial and equitable in this case, and (2) the court's findings are clearly
erroneous. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
AC45972 - High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission ("In this certified zoning appeal, the plaintiff, High Watch Recovery Center, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing its administrative appeal. The plaintiff brought the underlying appeal to the Superior Court from a decision of the defendant, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Kent (commission), denying its special permit application that proposed the addition of a thirty foot by seventy foot greenhouse to its property located at 47 Carter Road in Kent. The commission denied the plaintiff's application because it determined that the plaintiff's proposed greenhouse was an illegal expansion, rather than a permissible intensification, of its valid nonconforming use of the property. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erroneously concluded that (1) the plaintiff could not, as a matter of law, intensify its valid nonconforming use of the property because the intensification doctrine recognized by our Supreme Court in Zachs v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 218 Conn. 324, 332, 589 A.2d 351 (1991), does not apply to a nonconforming use that arises out of a previously issued special permit and (2) the substantial evidence in the record supported the commission's determination that the plaintiff's proposed greenhouse was an illegal expansion of its valid nonconforming use. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the plaintiff and reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.")