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 47517 - In re S. F. ("The respondent father, Perry F., appeals
from the judgments of the trial court, rendered in favor
of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and
Families, terminating his parental rights with respect
to his children, A, B, and C. On appeal, the respondent
claims that he was denied his due process right to the
effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")
Wednesday, October 30th
- Stamford Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
Thursday, October 31st
- Bridgeport Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
- Middletown Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
- New Haven Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
- Waterbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Friday, November 1st
- Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
Monday, November 4th
- Middletown Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Rockville Law Library will open at 10:30 a.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, November 5th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.
Wednesday, November 6th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 12:30 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library closes at 12:00 p.m.
Thursday, November 7th
- Bridgeport Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
- Danbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 1:00 p.m.
- Hartford Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
- Putnam Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
- Torrington Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
Friday, November 8th
- New Britain Law Library opens at 9:45 a.m.
SC20795 - United Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority ("In this appeal, the plaintiff, The United Illuminating Company, appeals from the judgments of the Superior Court dismissing its consolidated administrative appeals from two final decisions of the defendant, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA). The plaintiff challenges PURA's determination that the plaintiff had violated its statutory obligations with respect to its emergency planning, storm recovery performance, and other actions taken in August, 2020, in connection with Tropical Storm Isaias and its aftermath. The plaintiff further contends that PURA improperly reduced the plaintiff's authorized return on equity (ROE) and imposed various civil penalties, including more than $1.2 million in fines. We conclude that the plaintiff's challenge to the ROE reduction is moot, insofar as the reduction was never implemented. We also conclude that PURA miscalculated the fines it imposed for the plaintiff's delayed reporting of two minor accidents. Otherwise, we find no error and thus affirm the trial court's judgments in all other respects.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 18, for October 29, 2024 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 350: Connecticut Reports (Pages 251 - 346)
- Volume 350: Orders (Pages 907 - 910)
- Volume 350: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 228: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 803 - 868)
- Volume 228: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 906 - 907)
- Volume 228: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
AC46677 - Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (“These two appeals, although not consolidated, involve closely related claims. In Docket No. AC 46677, the plaintiff, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its administrative appeal brought against the defendant Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers). The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in concluding that Travelers had not engaged in age discrimination per se, in violation of General Statutes § 46a-60 (b) (6), by means of posting a job advertisement that contained the phrase ‘‘recent college graduate.’’ In Docket No. AC 46678, the CHRO appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its administrative appeal brought against the defendant Yale University (Yale). The plaintiff claims that the court erred in rejecting its claim that Yale had engaged in age discrimination per se, in violation of § 46a-60 (b) (6), by means of posting a job advertisement that contained the phrase ‘‘recent graduate.’’ We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)
AC46030 - State v. Vickers (“The defendant, Kenyal Vickers, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (2), two counts of breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (2), and failure to appear in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-172 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) improperly denied his motion for severance of the charges as to two separate victims, and (2) committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the proper use of the evidence following the denial of his motion for severance. We are not persuaded and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46607 - Mills v. Statewide Grievance Committee ("The plaintiff attorney, John W. Mills, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Statewide Grievance Committee (committee). The committee reprimanded the plaintiff after finding that he had filed a motion containing statements that violated rules 8.2 (a) and 8.4 (4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly dismissed his appeal because (1) the reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee (reviewing committee) applied the wrong test for determining whether he made statements knowing them to be false or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity, (2) the record does not provide clear and convincing evidence that his statements violated rule 8.2 (a), and (3) the committee abused its discretion by reprimanding the plaintiff. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Thursday, October 24th
- Bridgeport Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
- Middletown Law Library is closing at 1:00 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
Friday, October 25th
- Hartford Law Library is closed,
- Middletown Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed from 10:45 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
Monday, October 28th
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, October 29th
- Middletown Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Wednesday, October 30th
- Middletown Law Library is closed from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
- Stamford Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
Thursday, October 31st
- New Haven Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Friday, November 1st
- Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 17, for October 22, 2024 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 350: Connecticut Reports (Pages 119 - 251)
- Volume 350: Orders (Pages 903 - 907)
- Volume 350: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 228: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 750 - 803)
- Volume 228: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 905 - 905)
- Volume 228: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
AC45829 - Mulvihill v. Spinnato ("The defendant, Kara Spinnato, known also as Kara Callahan, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her special motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute, General Statutes § 52-196a, in this defamation action brought by the self-represented plaintiff, Daniel Mulvihill. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff met his burden under § 52-196a of establishing probable cause that he will prevail on the merits of his complaint. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC 46271 - Kosar v. Giangrande ("In this dissolution action, the defendant,
Marie Giangrande, appeals following the trial court’s
judgment dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff, Jaromir Kosar, and the trial court’s order on the plaintiff’s
amended motion for contempt and injunctive relief.
On appeal, the defendant claims that the court, Hon.
Michael E. Shay, judge trial referee, (1) abused its discretion and deprived her of due process of law by limiting her case-in-chief on the plaintiff’s pendente lite
amended motion for contempt and motion for injunctive relief to only fifteen minutes and (2) abused its
discretion in refusing to hear her motion to open the
parties’ pendente lite agreement regarding the marital
home. She also claims that the court, Moukawsher, J. (3) committed plain error by presiding over the parties’
dissolution trial after conducting a hearing on the
motion of the defendant’s then counsel to withdraw his
appearance and (4) made credibility determinations on
improper bases. We agree with the defendant on her
first claim but disagree with her on her other claims.
Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part the
judgment of the trial court.")
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Tuesday, October 15th
- New London Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Rockville Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
Wednesday, October 16th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
- New London Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Rockville Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
Thursday, October 17th
- Rockville Law Library is closed.
Friday, October 18th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 1:00 p.m.
- New Haven Law Library opens at 12:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library opens at 12:15 p.m.
Monday, October 21st
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, October 22nd
- Hartford Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 3:45 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Wednesday, October 23rd
- Bridgeport Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and is closed from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
- Stamford Law Library closes at 2:00 p.m.
Thursday, October 24th
- Bridgeport Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.
- Middletown Law Library is closing at 1:00 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 4:45 p.m.
- Rockville Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
Friday, October 25th
- Middletown Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed from 10:45 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 16, for October 15, 2024 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 350: Connecticut Reports (Pages 1 - 118)
- Volume 350: Orders (Pages 901 - 903)
- Volume 350: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 228: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 593 - 748)
- Volume 228: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 904)
- Volume 228: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
AC46370 - Sicignano v. Pearce (“The plaintiff, Robert J. Sicignano, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his complaint against the defendants, Barbara Pearce and Connecticut Hospice, Inc. (Connecticut Hospice), pursuant to Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute, General Statutes § 52-196a. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred by: (1) ‘concluding [that] the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants fall within the ambit of protected constitutional conduct as defined by . . .§ 52-196a’; (2) ‘adopting language in the California anti-SLAPP statute and California case law not contained in the Connecticut anti-SLAPP statute in violation of the separation of powers under the constitution’; and (3) ‘adopting definitions of language in the Connecticut anti-SLAPP statute based upon California case law [interpreting] the California statute in violation of the rule against ex post facto legislation as applied to the courts through the due process clause.’ We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46348 - Rubin v. Brodie (“We agree with the plaintiffs’ first claim and conclude specifically that the court improperly determined that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain a derivative action to enforce the rights of the plaintiff LLCs in light of the court’s conclusion that their complaint sufficiently alleged demand futility. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the individual plaintiffs’ derivative action. We disagree with the plaintiffs’ second and third claims and therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff LLCs’ and the individual plaintiffs’ direct actions. We decline to review the plaintiffs’ fourth claim.”)
AC45493 - State v. Greene-Pendergrass (Violation of probation; “The issue presented in this appeal
is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the probation of
the defendant, Marque Greene-Pendergrass, and sentencing him to five years of
incarceration. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and,
accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)
AC46775 - State v. Maurice B. (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial impropriety and deprived him of a fair trial when the prosecutor made certain improper statements during the state’s rebuttal closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46910 - Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused
its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal; (2)
improperly concluded that he failed to establish that his trial counsel’s
performance was constitutionally deficient; and (3) improperly concluded that
he was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s deficient performance in the
underlying criminal proceeding. We disagree and dismiss the appeal.”)
AC46290 - Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin ("In this summary process action, the plaintiff, Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Lisa Glicklin. The plaintiff initiated this summary process action against the defendant claiming that the defendant repeatedly violated the plaintiff's smoke-free housing policy. In rendering judgment for the defendant, the trial court rejected the plaintiff's claim on the basis that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had not cured the violation of the plaintiff's policy. On appeal, the plaintiff raises interrelated claims. First, it claims that the court improperly raised sua sponte the unpleaded special defense of cure to defeat its summary process action. Second, it claims that, even if it was proper for the court to raise the special defense of cure sua sponte, the court improperly placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant did not cure her violations. The defendant, in addition to disputing the plaintiff's claims, argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action because of alleged inadequacies in the pretermination notice provided to the defendant. For the reasons that follow, we reject the defendant's jurisdictional argument and agree with the plaintiff that the court improperly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court.")
The regularly scheduled hours for the law libraries are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., unless noted below.
Wednesday, October 9th
- Waterbury Law Library opens at 10:45 a.m.
Thursday, October 10th
- Stamford Law Library is open from 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Monday, October 14th
- All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed in observance of the holiday.
Tuesday, October 15th
- New London Law Library opens at 10:30 a.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Rockville Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 1:15 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 3:00 p.m.
Wednesday, October 16th
- Danbury Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
- New London Law Library opens at 11:00 a.m.
- Rockville Law Library is closed.
- Torrington Law Library opens at 10:15 a.m.
Thursday, October 17th
- Rockville Law Library is closed.
Friday, October 18th
- Torrington Law Library opens at 12:15 p.m.
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 15, for October 8, 2024 is now available.
Contained in the issue is the following:
- Table of Contents
- Volume 349: Connecticut Reports (Pages 783 - 845)
- Volume 349: Orders (Pages 924 - 924)
- Volume 349: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 228: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 444 - 593)
- Volume 228: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 904 - 904)
- Volume 228: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies