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.

Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=479

AC38165 - Bauer v. Bauer ("The plaintiff, Mary L. Bauer, appeals from the postjudgment rulings of the trial court denying her motion for contempt and granting the motion of the defendant, Jeffrey W. Bauer, for modification of his alimony obligation. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the defendant’s failure to pay court-ordered alimony was not wilful, (2) failed to conclude that the defendant’s conduct was culpable when considering his motion for modification, and (3) failed to admit certain evidence that she offered relative to the criteria set forth in General Statutes § 46b-82. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=478

AC38217, AC38365 - American First Federal, Inc. v. Gordon ("These consolidated appeals arise from an action brought by the plaintiff, American First Federal, Inc., against the defendants, Sheldon M. Gordon and Gordon Group Investments, LLC (GGI), to collect on a commercial loan. Following a trial to the court, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. In AC 38217, the defendants claim that the court erred by concluding that the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest assigned its rights under the loan to the plaintiff. In AC 38365, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in its determination of attorney’s fees and calculation of postjudgment interest. We disagree with the parties’ claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.")


Criminal Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=476

SC19712 - State v. Reyes ("The defendant, Angelo Reyes, appeals from the judgments of conviction, following a jury trial, of two counts of arson in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-112 (a) (2), two counts of conspiracy to commit criminal mischief in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-115 (a) (1) and 53a-48 (a), and one count of conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-101 (a) (1) and 53a-48 (a). The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) instructed the jury on reasonable doubt, (2) failed to bar the assistant state's attorney (prosecutor), during voir dire, from informing certain prospective jurors that reasonable doubt is something less than 100 percent certainty, and (3) limited the defendant's right to cross-examine key state witnesses. We conclude that the defendant implicitly waived his unpreserved claim of instructional impropriety under State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 10 A.3d 942 (2011), and we reject the defendant's other claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC38027 - State v. Heath ("The state appeals and the defendant, Jamar Heath, cross appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting in part the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. In its appeal, the state, in reliance on State v. Victor O., 320 Conn. 239, 128 A.3d 940 (2016) (Victor O. II), and State v. Jason B., 320 Conn. 259, 128 A.3d 937 (2016), claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 53a-70 (b) (3) required the court to sentence the defendant to a period of special parole for his conviction of sexual assault in the first degree. In his cross appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly resentenced him to a total effective sentence that exceeds his original sentence. We agree with the state and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38025 - State v. Ruiz ("The state appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting in part the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. In reliance on State v. Victor O., 320 Conn. 239, 128 A.3d 940 (2016) (Victor O. II), and State v. Jason B., 320 Conn. 259, 128 A.3d 937 (2016), the state claims that the trial court improperly held that the defendant's original sentence was illegal because it did not include a period of special parole. The defendant, Jesus Ruiz, cross appeals from the judgment of the trial court. The defendant claims that the court resentenced him to a total effective sentence that improperly exceeds his original sentence. We conclude that the defendant's original sentence was not illegal for lack of a period of special parole. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")



Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=475

AC38208, AC38093, AC38094, AC38095, AC38097 - Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc and AC38098, AC38099 - Girolametti v. VP Buildings, Inc. (Negligence; "These seven appeals arise from disputes regarding the construction of an expansion to a Party Depot Store (store) located in Danbury. The owners of the store, the plaintiffs John Girolametti, Jr., and Cindy Girolametti, brought actions against the general contractor, Rizzo Corporation (Rizzo), and seven subcontractors and sub-subcontractors who worked on the construction project, on various claims relating to the quality of the work provided. All eight defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The owners of the store appeal from the court's judgment granting Rizzo's motion for summary judgment. The subcontractors and sub-subcontractors appeal from the court's judgment denying all of their motions for summary judgment. Although each appeal involves some unique facts and implicates the interests of parties specific to that appeal, the factual backdrop to these appeals is sufficiently common to enable us, on review, to set forth the facts that underlie them in one background statement. Additional facts will be noted, as appropriate, in our discussion of each appeal. ")

AC38263 - Kruger v. Grauer (Defamation; "The defendant, Avery Grauer, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion for summary judgment. The issue in this appeal is whether the court properly concluded that the defendant was not entitled to absolute immunity on the basis of the litigation privilege for reports of child sexual abuse that she made to the Department of Children and Families (department). We conclude that, even if we were to assume, without deciding, that individuals who make such reports were entitled to absolute immunity at common law, the legislature has abrogated that common-law immunity by affording only qualified immunity to those who report abuse or neglect pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-101e (b). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=473

AC38214 - Haughey v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because his mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release violated the requirement of individualized, proportionate sentencing under the eighth amendment to the United States constitution as articulated in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012). The petitioner also claims, for the first time on appeal, that his mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of release violates the Connecticut constitution. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")


Workers' Compensation Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=474

AC38382 - Teixeira v. Home Depot, Inc. (Workers' Compensation; "The plaintiff, Robert Teixeira, appeals from the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner (commissioner) (1) denying the plaintiff’s request for a continuance on the rescheduled trial date and (2) concluding that the plaintiff had not met his burden of proof that his discharge from employment by the defendant, The Home Depot, Inc., was retaliatory in violation of the Workers’ Compensation Act, General Statutes § 31-275 et seq. (act). We affirm the decision of the commissioner.")


Juvenile Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=472

SC19707 - In re Natalie S. ("On appeal to this court, the respondent asserts that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the Department of Children and Families (department) was not required to provide reunification efforts to her in the present case because the father was awarded temporary guardianship of Natalie. The petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, asserts that the department was not required to continue providing reunification efforts to the respondent because the trial court granted custody and guardianship to the father. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

SC19844- In re Natalie S. ("On appeal to this court, the mother asserts that the trial court incorrectly determined that North Carolina was the appropriate forum to adjudicate the issues raised in her motion for visitation. The respondent father, Matthew B. (father), asserts that the trial court properly denied the mother’s motion for visitation on the ground that North Carolina is the more appropriate forum to decide the issues raised therein. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=477

AC38254 - Brander v. Stoddard ("In this action seeking to quiet title to a parcel of property located along the Farmington River in New Hartford, the plaintiff, Bert Brander, appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding in favor of the defendants, Trisha Stoddard, in her capacity as the temporary administrator for the estate of Lily B. Frey, and the Farmington River Watershed Association, Inc., on both counts of the operative complaint. The plaintiff, who began using the disputed parcel in 1984 to graze sheep and grow hay, alleged that he acquired title through adverse possession or, in the alternative, had a prescriptive easement for its use. In response, the defendants argued that, for certain periods of time, the plaintiff's use of the property had been with the permission or implied consent of the owners. The matter was tried to the court, Marano, J., over two days in February, 2015. On August 6, 2015, the court issued a memorandum of decision finding in favor of the defendants. . .

Having examined the record on appeal and having considered the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Further, because the court thoroughly addressed in its memorandum of decision all of the arguments raised by the parties on appeal, we adopt that well reasoned decision as a proper statement of both the facts and the applicable law at issue. See Brander v. Stoddard, 173 Conn. App. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2015) (appendix).")

AC38254 Appendix- Brander v. Stoddard

AC37568 - Thurlow v. Hulten and Hulten v. Thurlow ("This appeal and cross appeal arise out of two actions brought to the trial court, which were consolidated for trial, stemming from a property dispute between adjoining landowners in Canterbury. In the first action, Luther E. Thurlow, Anthony Denning, and Steven Pelletier (Thurlow parties), claimed that Lee Ann Hulten and Linda K. Dieters (Hulten parties), had interfered with their right to access their landlocked property via easements over the Hulten parties' property, comprised of two separate parcels, lot A and lot B. The Thurlow parties claimed an express easement over lot A and an easement by necessity or an easement by implication over lot B. The Thurlow parties claimed that they had sustained damages as a result of the actions of the Hulten parties in restricting their use of the easements. In the second action, the Hulten parties claimed that the Thurlow parties had been trespassing on their property and sought to quiet title to the disputed property. The Hulten parties denied the existence of any easement over their property, but claimed that, even if an easement existed, it was limited to lot A. They thus sought to enjoin the Thurlow parties from using the claimed easement over lot B. The Hulten parties also sought to quiet title as to the size and boundaries of lot B and to recover damages for the unauthorized cutting and removal of timber from land they claimed to be part of lot B. . .

Having examined the record on appeal and considered the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the court's memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in the present appeals, we adopt its thorough and well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on these issues. See Thurlow v. Hulten, 173 Conn. App. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2014) (appendix).")

AC37568 Appendix - Thurlow v. Hulten and Hulten v. Thurlow



Connecticut eLicense verification tool

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=471

The Connecticut eLicense web portal is an online database that allows you to verify professional licenses issued by certain Connecticut state agencies: Department of Consumer Protection, Department of Public Health, Department of Agriculture, OEC Child Care & Youth Camp Licensing, and CAES Department of Entomology.

If you need guidance on how to use the portal, the Department of Consumer Protection has created step-by-step instructions, as well as a short video that shows you how to perform a lookup. They also offer a useful discussion on the Difference Between a License, Registration, and Permit.

And for more information on which state agency is (or isn't) responsible for a profession's licensing and regulation, see the DCP's comprehensive A-Z Information Index.



Law Library Hours Update: May 24th - May 26th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=469

Wednesday, May 24th

  • Putnam Law Library will be closed.

Thursday, May 25th

  • Danbury Law Library will be open from 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
  • Hartford, Middletown and New Britain Law Library will open at 12:30 p.m.

Friday, May 26th

  • Danbury Law Library will be closed.
  • New Britain Law Library will open at 11:00 a.m.

See our regularly scheduled hours.


Medical Malpractice in Connecticut - 2017 Edition

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=468

The 2017 edition of Medical Malpractice in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides page.

Table of Contents

Section 1: Certificate of Good Faith, Reasonable Inquiry or Merit & Written Opinion Letter

Section 2: Automatic Ninety-Day Extension of Statute of Limitations

Figure 1: Petition to Clerk for Automatic Ninety Day Extension

Section 3: Elements of a Medical Malpractice Action

Section 4: Defenses

Section 5: Evidence

Table 1: Settlements and Verdicts in Connecticut Medical Malpractice Actions


Law Library Hours Update: May 24th - May 26th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=467

Wednesday, May 24th

  • Putnam Law Library will be closed.


Thursday, May 25th

  • Danbury Law Library will be open from 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
  • Hartford and New Britain Law Library will open at 12:30 p.m.

Friday, May 26th

  • Danbury Law Library will be closed.
  • New Britain Law Library will open at 11:00 a.m.

See our regularly scheduled hours.


LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Administrative Law and Practice

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=466

The 2017 edition of LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Administrative Law and Practice has been received by all of our law libraries. Each chapter of this guide offers analysis, strategies, checklists, and tips. The table of contents is listed below:

Chapter 1. Introduction to Administrative Law

Chapter 2. Rulemaking

Chapter 3. Freedom of Information - Public Meetings

Chapter 4. Freedom of Information - Public Records

Chapter 5. Contested Cases - The Prehearing Process

Chapter 6. The Anatomy of a Contested Case

Chapter 7. The Post-Hearing Process

Chapter 8. Collateral Estoppel, Res Judicata, Stare Decisis and the Equitable Defenses

Chapter 9. Overview of Local Administrative Law

Chapter 10. Ethical Issues for the Administrative Lawyer

Chapter 11. Where to Find Administrative Agency Materials

For additional information, please contact your local Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library.


Law Library Hours Update: May 23rd - May 26th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=465

Tuesday, May 23rd

  • New Britain Law Library will close at 3:00 p.m.
  • New London Law Library will close at 3:15 p.m.

Thursday, May 25th

  • Hartford and New Britain Law Library will open at 12:30 p.m.

Friday, May 26th

  • Danbury Law Library will be closed.
  • New Britain Law Library will open at 11:00 a.m.

See our regularly scheduled hours.


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=463

AC38753 - Rinfret v. Porter ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court improperly awarded the defendant, Melissa Jayne Porter, her attorney's fees under the bad faith exception to the 'American rule' by broadly concluding that the underlying custody action brought by the plaintiff, Peter Alan Rinfret, was both (1) 'entirely without color' and (2) taken in bad faith. We conclude that the court did not find with adequate specificity that the plaintiff's actions were entirely without color. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment awarding the defendant $87,548.11 in attorney's fees and remand the matter for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=462

AC37869 - Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Accurate Title Searches, Inc. (Negligence; "This is an action by the plaintiff, Chicago Title Insurance Company (Chicago Title), to recover damages from the defendant, Accurate Title Searches, Inc., for losses allegedly incurred by Ticor Title Insurance Company (Ticor Title), another title insurer with which the plaintiff later merged, due to the defendant's negligence in performing a title search as to a parcel of real property in Hartford (property). This is an action by the plaintiff, Chicago Title Insurance Company (Chicago Title), to recover damages from the defendant, Accurate Title Searches, Inc., for losses allegedly incurred by Ticor Title Insurance Company (Ticor Title), another title insurer with which the plaintiff later merged, due to the defendant's negligence in performing a title search as to a parcel of real property in Hartford (property)...."

"On the record before us, we agree with the trial court, Bright, J., that the plaintiff’s claim sounds in negligence, not in common-law identification, and thus that the defendant’s arguments as to what proof is required to prevail on a claim for indemnification are inapplicable to this case. On the other hand, we disagree with the trial court, Wiese, J., that the plaintiff’s claim for damages to compensate it for the attorney’s fees and expenses it incurred to defend its insured in prior litigation is barred in this action by the American rule. Accordingly, although we reverse the court’s judgment denying the plaintiff's claim for compensatory damages in the amount of its prior attorney's fees and expenses and remand this case for further proceedings on that claim, we affirm the court’s judgment in all other respects.")


Criminal Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=460

SC19526 - State v. Swebilius (Possession of child pornography first degree; plea of nolo contendere; certification from Appellate Court; "In State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443, 521 A.2d 1034 (1987), this court held that a criminal statute of limitations will be tolled by the issuance of an arrest warrant within the statutory limitation period, as long as the warrant is executed "without unreasonable delay." Id., 451. The defendant, Jon Swebilius, was charged with possession of child pornography in the first degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 53a-196d (a) and was arrested thirty-two days after the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and thirteen days after the expiration of the applicable five year statute of limitations for that offense. The defendant moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations because, he claimed, the delay in the execution of the warrant was unreasonable. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the delay was reasonable as a matter of law under Crawford and its progeny. State v. Swebilius, 158 Conn. App. 418, 423–28, 119 A.3d 601 (2015). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following question: "Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's decision denying the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to . . . Crawford . . . ?" (Citation omitted.) State v. Swebilius, 318 Conn. 907, 122 A.3d 635 (2015). We conclude that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that a thirty-two day delay in the execution of an arrest warrant, where the warrant was executed after the expiration of the limitation period, is reasonable as a matter of law such that the state was under no obligation to present evidence demonstrating that the delay was not objectively unreasonable and, therefore, excusable. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court with direction to remand the case to the trial court for a hearing on whether the delay in the execution of the warrant was reasonable under the circumstances.")

AC37808 - State v. Joseph R. B. (Risk of injury to child; "The defendant, Joseph R. B., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2011) § 53-21 (a) (1). The defendant claims that (1) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction and (2) certain comments made by the prosecutor violated his fifth amendment right to remain silent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Property Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=464

SC19568, SC19569 - Mayer v. Historic District Commission (Historic districts; certificate of appropriateness; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether the statutory aggrievement principles of General Statutes § 8-8 extend to appeals from the decisions of historic district commissions brought pursuant to General Statutes § 7-147i. The plaintiffs, Robert Mayer and Mary Pat Mayer, appeal from the judgments of the trial court dismissing their appeals from two decisions of the named defendant, the Historic District Commission of the Town of Groton (commission), with respect to alterations to a barn located on real property owned by the defendants Steven Young and Caroline Young (applicants). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly concluded that: (1) statutory aggrievement under § 8-8 does not extend to historic district commission appeals brought pursuant to § 7-147i; and (2) they had failed to establish that they were classically aggrieved with respect to each of the commission's two decisions. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")


Law Library Hours Update: May 22nd - May 26th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=461

Monday, May 22nd

  • New Britain Law Library will close at 2:30 p.m.

Tuesday, May 23rd

  • New London Law Library will close at 3:15 p.m.

Thursday, May 25th

  • Hartford and New Britain Law Library will open at 12:30 p.m.

Friday, May 26th

  • Danbury Law Library will be closed.
  • New Britain Law Library will open at 11:00 a.m.

See our regularly scheduled hours.


1 2 3