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.
Recent Opinions

Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=848

AC38935 - State v. Tucker (Probation; assault in third degree; "The defendant, Raymond Tucker, appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding him in violation of probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) erred in admitting a 911 recording into evidence, (2) erroneously found that the defendant had violated his probation, and (3) abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of three years incarceration. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39376 - State v. Manousos (Arson in first degree; "The defendant, Anthony C. Manousos, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of arson in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-111 (a) (1). The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) denied his motions to suppress various tangible items collected from him, as well as oral statements that he made to the police during an investigatory stop and subsequent patdown search for weapons; and (2) compelled him to disclose prior to trial the substance of the opinions of the expert witness he intended to call at trial. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38855 - State v. Brown (Possession of more than four ounces of marijuana; subject matter jurisdiction; "The defendant, Aceion Brown, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We conclude that, in the circumstances presented, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition, and we do not reach the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Because the court should have dismissed the petition, rather than having denied it, we reverse the judgment of the trial court only as to the form of the judgment and remand the case with direction to dismiss the petition for a writ of error coram nobis.")

AC38419 - State v. Outlaw (Assault of public safety personnel; plain error; "The defendant, Vaughn Outlaw, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault public safety personnel in connection with his assault of an employee of the Department of Correction (department) in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167c (a) (5). On appeal, the defendant asserts that the court committed plain error when it did not include detailed language on the use of unwarranted or excessive force as part of its instructions to the jury on the second element of § 53a-167c (a) (5), which pertains to whether the employee was acting in the performance of his duties. The state contends that the defendant explicitly waived his claim at trial and failed to demonstrate that the court committed an obvious error resulting in manifest injustice. Because we agree with the state's latter argument, 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=849

AC39971 - Gamble v. Commissioner of Correction (Ineffective assistance; conviction of manslaughter as accessory; concert of action theory; doctrine of collateral estoppel; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We are not persuaded by the petitioner’s arguments, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court…On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that he failed to establish that his appellate counsel was ineffective by not raising insufficiency of evidence as an issue in his direct appeal. He contends that the court improperly concluded that he failed to prove that he was prejudiced by his appellate counsel’s performance. We disagree.”)

AC39476 - Brown v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal, and by rejecting his claims that (1) the state violated his rights to due process and a fair trial by failing to disclose material exculpable evidence and failing to correct false testimony from certain witnesses at his criminal trial, and (2) his criminal trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=850

AC39526 - Finney v. Cameron's Auto Towing Repair ("The plaintiff, John K. Finney, commenced this action alleging that the defendant, Cameron’s Auto Towing Repair, breached its contract to repair his vehicle. The defendant denied that it had agreed to repair the plaintiff’s vehicle and filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff had failed to pay it for the towing and storage of his vehicle, and, thus, that he had abandoned it. The plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant on his complaint and the defendant’s counterclaim. We conclude that the trial court properly determined that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s complaint because it established that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to its right to prevail on the plaintiff’s claim. We further conclude, however, that the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant on its counterclaim against the plaintiff because the defendant failed to state any basis upon which it was entitled to judgment on the claim therein pleaded, either in its motion for summary judgment or in its supporting memorandum of law. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=847

SC191723 - Lucenti v. Laviero ("In this certified appeal, we consider the contours of the proof necessary, under Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 229 Conn. 99, 111, 639 A.2d 507 (1994) (Suarez I), and Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 242 Conn. 255, 280–81, 698 A.2d 838 (1997) (Suarez II), for an employee to establish an employer's subjective intent to create a dangerous situation with a 'substantial certainty of injury' to the employee, for purposes of avoiding application of General Statutes § 31-284 (a), the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq. The plaintiff, Dominick Lucenti, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Greg Laviero and Martin Laviero Contractors, Inc. (Laviero Contractors). Lucenti v. Laviero, 165 Conn. App. 429, 441, 139 A.3d 752 (2016). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that evidence regarding warnings to Laviero from the plaintiff and other employees about the dangers posed by the use of a particular excavator, which would operate only when 'rigged' to run at full throttle, did not establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants subjectively believed that the plaintiff's subsequent injuries from the use of that excavator were substantially certain to occur. We conclude that, in the absence of any evidence demonstrating the hallmarks typical of such employer misconduct, the plaintiff has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the defendants' subjective beliefs. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court."


Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=845

SC19768 - Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education, Inc. v. Rell ("Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither justice nor freedom can be permanently maintained." Letter from James A. Garfield accepting the presidential nomination (July 12, 1880), The American Presidency Project, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=76... (last visited January 17, 2018). In the present case, we acknowledge that the plaintiffs have painted a vivid picture of an imperfect public educational system in this state that is straining to serve many students who, because their basic needs for, among other things, adequate parenting, financial resources, housing, nutrition and care for their physical and psychological health are not being met, cannot take advantage of the educational opportunities that the state is offering. We are highly sympathetic to the plight of these struggling students. Indeed, we join our voice to the voices of those who urge the state to do all that it reasonably can to ensure not only that all children in this state have the bare opportunity to receive the minimally adequate education required by article eighth, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution, but also that the neediest children have the support that they need to actually take advantage of that opportunity. It is not the function of the courts, however, to create educational policy or to attempt by judicial fiat to eliminate all of the societal deficiencies that continue to frustrate the state's educational efforts. Rather, the function of the courts is to determine whether the narrow and specific criteria for a minimally adequate educational system under our state constitution have been satisfied. Once a determination of minimal adequacy has been made, courts simply are not in a position to determine whether schools in poorer districts would be better off expending scarce additional resources on more teachers, more computers, more books, more technical staff, more meals, more guidance counselors, more health care, more English instruction, greater preschool availability, or some other resource. Such judgments are quintessentially legislative in nature. Because we conclude that the trial court was correct in its initial determination that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the state's educational offerings are not minimally adequate under article eighth, § 1, and in its determination that the state has not violated their equal protection rights under the state constitution, the plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claims that the state has not provided them with a suitable and substantially equal educational opportunity.

The defendants appeal from the trial court's decision that they have violated article eighth, § 1, and the plaintiffs cross appeal from the trial court's rulings that they did not establish that the state has failed to provide minimally adequate educational opportunities to the children in any school district in the state and have not violated the plaintiffs' equal protection rights under the state constitution. We conclude that the trial court properly found that the plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence that the state is not providing children in this state with minimally adequate educational resources that satisfy the requirements of article eighth, § 1. We further conclude that, having made this determination, the trial court should have held that the defendants have not violated that constitutional provision, and it should not have gone on to apply a new constitutional test. Finally, we conclude that the trial court properly found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the state has violated the equal protection provisions of the state constitution. We therefore conclude that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the defendants have violated the plaintiffs' rights under article eighth, § 1, and article first, §§ 1 and 20. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - January 16, 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=842

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 29, for January 16, 2018 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 327: Connecticut Reports (Pages 482 - 575)
  • Volume 327: Orders (Pages 991 - 996)
  • Volume 327: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 179: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 221 - 270)
  • Volume 179: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Tort Law Supreme and Appellate Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=836

SC19873 - Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C. (Negligence; "The plaintiff, Emily Byrne, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Avery Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C., on two counts of the operative complaint alleging, respectively, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that the trial court incorrectly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on these counts because it incorrectly concluded that the defendant, as a health care provider, owed the plaintiff no common-law duty of confidentiality. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39296 - Pettiford v. State (Negligence; "In this action arising out of a motor vehicle collision with a pedestrian, the plaintiff Michael Pettiford appeals, following a trial to the court, from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, the state of Connecticut. The court concluded that the plaintiff was 'at least' 60 percent contributorily negligent for his injuries and, thus, was barred from recovering damages on the basis of the defendant's negligence in accordance with General Statutes § 52-572h (b). The plaintiff claims on appeal that he is entitled to a new trial because the court's comparative negligence calculus rested on the court's erroneous determination that there was not an unmarked crosswalk at the location where the plaintiff was struck by the defendant's vehicle. The defendant disputes the existence of an unmarked crosswalk and also argues in the alternative that the existence of an unmarked crosswalk, or lack thereof, is legally insignificant because the trial court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove how and where along the roadway he crossed at the time of the accident. We agree with the defendant that the court properly determined that no unmarked crosswalk existed but conclude in the alternative that, even if an unmarked crosswalk existed, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was in or very near that crosswalk at the time he was hit by the defendant's vehicle, and, therefore, we lack any basis from which to determine whether the claimed error undermined the court's judgment. Because the form of the judgment was improper, however, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with direction to render judgment in favor of the defendant.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=835

AC39980 - State v. Lebrick (Felony murder; home invasion; conspiracy to commit home invasion; burglary in first degree; attempt to commit robbery in first degree; assault in first degree; "The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence (1) former testimony of a witness in violation of § 8-6 (1) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence and the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, and (2) testimony by the state's firearm and tool mark expert in violation of § 4-1 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence and the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39720 - State v. Montana (Sexual assault in first degree; risk of injury to child; "The defendant, Travis Montana, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the court abused its discretion in excluding third-party culpability evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Juvenile Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=834

SC19913, SC19914 - In Re Egypt E. (Termination of parental rights; "This case chiefly concerns the scope of the ground for termination of parental rights contemplated by General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (C), regarding acts of parental commission or omission that deny a child the care necessary for the child’s physical or emotional well-being… The respondents claim, therefore, that the termination of their parental rights improperly was based on a finding of predictive harm, a type of harm not contemplated by § 17a-112 (j) (3) (C). We agree with the respondents that a termination of parental rights pursuant to § 17a- 112 (j) (3) (C) may not be based upon predictive harm. Under the unusual procedural circumstances underlying this appeal, however, we conclude that the court properly found that § 17a-112 (j) (3) (C) was proven on the basis that Egypt had been harmed by the respondents’ postremoval acts of parental commission or omission. Specifically, because the petitions to terminate the respondents’ parental rights were amended, and, therefore, the adjudicatory date was extended to encompass events subsequent to the filing of the original petitions, the court properly considered the conduct following the removal of the children, which had an actual, harmful effect on the well-being of Egypt. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.")


Family Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=833

SC19640 - Cohen v. Cohen ("The marriage of the plaintiff, Ruth Cohen, and the defendant, Franklin Cohen, was dissolved in 2002. At that time, the trial court, Hon.Dennis Harrigan, judge trial referee, incorporated their separation agreement, which contained a provision requiring the defendant to pay alimony to the plaintiff, into the divorce decree. In 2010, the defendant filed a motion to modify the alimony provision of the divorce decree on the ground that his income had declined significantly. The trial court, Shay, J., granted that motion by way of a corrected memorandum of decision in 2012. In 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion to modify the 2012 modification order on the ground that the defendant’s income had substantially increased. The trial court, Colin, J., granted that motion. The defendant then filed this appeal claiming, among other things, that Judge Colin improperly (1) based his conclusion that there had been a significant change in the parties’ financial circumstances warranting a modification of the 2012 modification order on a comparison of their current circumstances to their circumstances at the time of the divorce decree, instead of their circumstances at the time of the previous 2012 modification order, (2) considered the plaintiff’s motion for modification when it was ‘legally insufficient’ on its face, (3) considered certain evidence in support of his conclusion that the 2012 modification order should be modified, and (4) rendered an illegal ‘lifetime profit sharing order.’ We reject these claims and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - January 9, 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=832

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 28, for January 9, 2018 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 156 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 259 - 260
  • Volume 325 Conn. Replacement Pages 277 - 278
  • Volume 325 Conn. Replacement Pages 297 - 298
  • Volume 179: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 95 - 221)
  • Volume 179: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
  • Volume 179: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=830

SC19773 - Epps v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition for certification; "In two decisions issued after the petitioner’s conviction was rendered final, this court respectively (1) overruled the long- standing interpretation of our kidnapping statutes under which the crime of kidnapping did not require that the restraint used be more than that which was incidental to and necessary for the commission of another crime against the victim, and (2) deemed that holding to apply retroactively to collateral attacks on final judgments. The petitioner thereafter sought a new trial on the kidnapping charge in light of those holdings in an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus…The respondent never argued in the alternative that a higher standard of harmfulness should apply to collateral proceedings even if the petitioner’s claim was not subject to procedural default, despite federal case law applying a higher standard since 1993. Accordingly, we conclude that this is not the proper case in which to fairly address this consequential issue and that certification was improvidently granted.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=829

AC38813 - Estela v. Bristol Hospital, Inc. ("This appeal is the latest installment in a long and protracted litigation between the parties. The plaintiff, Jose Estela, a physician, appeals from the trial court’s judgment that his case could not be maintained under the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes § 52-592 (a), because his first action against the defendant, Bristol Hospital, Inc., was dismissed for 'serious disciplinary reasons' and not as a matter of form. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the defendant waived the right to challenge the applicability of § 52-592 (a); (2) the court incorporated a different and higher standard into its decision and thus deprived him of his rights under Ruddock v. Burrowes, 243 Conn. 569, 706 A.2d 967 (1998), by limiting the § 52- 592 (a) hearing to the standard set forth in General Statutes § 52-212; (3) his alleged discovery noncompliance occurred in circumstances such as mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect; and (4) § 52-592 (a) applies to any judgment of nonsuit. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=824

AC34886 - State v. Bush (Sale of narcotics; sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of school; conspiracy to sell narcotics; "This case is before us on remand from our Supreme Court following its affirmance of our determination that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to sustain the conviction of the defendant, Richard Bush, for racketeering in violation of General Statutes § 53-393 et seq. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, with this court’s determination that the defendant was entitled to a new trial on the other charges of which he had been found guilty—six counts each of sale of narcotics and sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school, and one count of conspiracy to sell narcotics—because the trial court’s denial of his motion for a continuance to review voluminous discovery documents after granting his second request to represent himself had effectively deprived him of his constitutional right to self-representation. Before us now are the defendant’s additional claims of error as to his remaining convictions.The defendant claims that the trial court: (1) violated his constitutional right to self-representation by not granting his initial request to represent himself on the second day of voir dire; (2) improperly instructed the jury on the charge of conspiracy; and (3) improperly sentenced him to a term of twenty years incarceration on his conviction for conspiracy. We reject the defendant's first two claims of error, and thus conclude that he is not entitled to a new trial. We agree with the defendant, however, that he was improperly sentenced to a term of twenty years incarceration on his conviction for conspiracy. Accordingly, we remand this case for resentencing on that conviction.")

AC39893 - State v. Jin (Conspiracy to commit burglary in third degree; "The defendant, Gang Jin, appeals from the denial of his motion to open the judgment of conviction, after his guilty plea made pursuant to the Alford doctrine, of conspiracy to commit burglary in the third degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-103 and 53a-48. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly denied his application for the accelerated rehabilitation program pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56e and (2) erred in determining that he had received the effective assistance of counsel. The state counters that, following the imposition of the defendant's sentence, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the defendant's motion to open. Additionally, the state argues that the defendant's claim that the court retained jurisdiction because he had been sentenced in an illegal manner, which was raised for the first time on appeal, fails because he challenges the "events prior to his conviction and guilty plea, rather than events at sentencing." The state further contends that the defendant's guilty plea, made pursuant to the Alford doctrine, waives all prior nonjurisdictional defects. We agree with the state that, following the imposition of the defendant's sentence, the court's jurisdiction terminated. Additionally, we decline to consider the defendant's claim of an illegal sentence because he failed to present this issue to the trial court via a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Finally, the form of the judgment is improper, and therefore we reverse the judgment and remand the case with direction to dismiss the defendant's motion to open.")



Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=826

AC39273 - Tirado v. Torrington (Allegedly improper tax assessment of plaintiff's motor vehicle; "The plaintiff . . . appeals from the judgment of dismissal rendered by the trial court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to her failure to (1) file her complaint within one year of the tax assessment pursuant to General Statutes § 12-119, and (2) exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing an action pursuant to General Statutes § 12-117a. We agree that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing suit pursuant to § 12-117a, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=825

AC39392 - Boykin v. State (Personal injury; "The plaintiff, Eric Boykin, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the present action against the defendants, the state of Connecticut and James P. Redeker, Commissioner of Transportation (commissioner), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that sovereign immunity deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction because his written notice of claim pursuant to the state highway defect statute, General Statutes § 13a-144, was patently defective in its description of the cause of his injury. We agree with the plaintiff, and accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Environmental Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=827

AC38868 - Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & Enviromental Protection (Administrative appeal; "The plaintiff, Recycling, Inc. (RCI), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection (commissioner), denying its application for an individual permit to construct and operate a volume reduction facility (individual permit) and revoking its general permit to construct and operate certain recycling facilities (general permit). On appeal, RCI claims that the trial court erred in dismissing its appeal because: (1) the denial and revocation was not warranted under the circumstances of this case; (2) the hearing officer violated its rights to a fair hearing by applying an erroneous standard of review; (3) the hearing officer erroneously excluded relevant evidence; and (4) the commissioner engaged in improper conduct during the proceedings. 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=828

AC38769 - Smith v. Commissioner of Correction (Ineffective assistance; denial of certification to appeal; pretrial confinement credit; "The dispositive issue is whether the habeas court abused its discretion in so doing. We conclude that it did not and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal…We therefore conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is debatable among jurists of reason, could be resolved in a different manner, or is adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Simms v. Warden, supra, 230 Conn. 616. Accordingly, the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal.")


Connecticut Law Journal - January 2, 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=821

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 27, for January 2, 2018 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 327: Connecticut Reports (Pages 431 - 481)
  • Volume 327: Orders (Pages 988 - 991)
  • Volume 327: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 179: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 58 - 95)
  • Volume 179: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
  • Volume 179: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Connecticut Code of Evidence


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=818

AC39006, AC39011- Deane v. Kahn (Declaratory judgment; implied easement; "Since at least 2001, the parties in this case have been engaged in a lengthy legal dispute regarding abutting properties that sit along the bonny banks of the Connecticut River in Lyme. The defendants Amy Day Kahn, Robert Kahn, and John Gorman appeal from the judgment of the trial court finding that an easement exists in favor of the plaintiff, Curtis D. Deane, over the parcels of real property owned by Amy Day Kahn (Kahn property) and Gorman (Gorman property). The defendants' principal claim is that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's ultimate legal conclusion that an easement by implication exists over the Kahn property and, correspondingly, that an easement by deed continues to exist over the Gorman property. We affirm the judgment of the court.")