10/30/2009
-
AC28949, AC29922, AC30013 - Greci v. Parks (Automobile Accident; Negligence “On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court (1) improperly determined that the final judgment in this case was rendered on August 17, 2007, rather than June 8, 2007, and (2) abused its discretion in denying their motions to set aside the verdicts and for a new trial or, in the alternative, for additur, because (a) the court improperly had permitted the defendant to cross-examine Michael Greci with respect to certain medical records that were unrelated to his claimed injuries, (b) the court permitted the defendant’s counsel to make improper arguments to the jury and failed to deliver a requested curative instruction related to the improper closing arguments, and (c) the verdicts were inconsistent.”)
-
AC29962 - Buchanan v. Moreno (Automobile Accident; Negligence “In this negligence action, the defendants, Maria Moreno and Enaroy Simms, appeal following the trial court’s denial of their motion to set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Marcia E. Buchanan. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court abused its discretion in failing to admit a particular photograph as a full exhibit. On the basis of this claimed evidential impropriety, the defendants also contend that the court improperly denied their motion to set aside the verdict.”)
-
AC30097 - Gardner Heights Health Care Center, Inc. v. Korolyshun (“The underlying action here, however, was not such a contract action but was a claim of breach of fiduciary duty, which is a tort claim. See Ahern v. Kappalumakkel, 97 Conn. App. 189, 192 n.3, 903 A.2d 266 (2006). Accordingly, because § 42-150bb is not applicable to the action at hand, the court properly denied the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees.”)
-
AC29332 - Keller v. Beckenstein (“On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly granted (1) the motions for summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the first count as to whether the defendants were liable for a breach of contractual representations and warranties by commencing litigation against the plaintiffs, and (2) the motion to strike because the complaint sufficiently alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a violation under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.”) 10/1/2009
-
AC29834 — Mansfield v. A & M Automotive (“The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendant did not violate General Statutes § 14-145a, (2) failed to find that the defendant was liable for conversion and (3) failed to find that the defendant’s actions constituted a violation of General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).”)
-
AC30457 — Jarvis v. Lieder (“A constructive trust arises ‘when the legal title to property is obtained by a person in violation, express or implied, of some duty owed to the one who is equitably entitled, and when the property thus obtained is held in hostility to his beneficial rights of ownership. . . . The specific instances in which equity impresses a constructive trust are numberless,—as numberless as the modes by which property may be obtained through bad faith and unconscientious acts.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Millard v. Green, 94 Conn. 597, 601–602, 110 A. 177 (1920). This appeal calls on us to determine whether the trial court properly classified the defendants’ actions as among those numberless instances of bad faith or unconscientious acts that warrant the imposition of a constructive trust.”) 9/2/2009
- AC28286 — Sovereign Bank v. Licata (Foreclosure; “The substitute plaintiff, Seven Oaks Partners, LP (Seven Oaks), appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury verdict, in favor of the defendant…on her counterclaim alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and negligent misrepresentation. Seven Oaks claims that the court improperly failed to grant its motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to the counts of the defendant’s counterclaim alleging a violation of CUTPA and negligent misrepresentation.”)
-
AC29851 — Nicefaro v. New Haven (“The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff…in this trip and fall action. The defendant challenges as clearly erroneous the court’s findings that (1) the defendant had constructive notice of the defect at issue and (2) the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.”)
-
AC29822 — Sullivan v. Brown (“We may not overturn prior case law established by our Supreme Court, and we conclude, with respect to the defendants’ sole claim on appeal concerning costs and attorney’s fees under CUTPA, that the defendants have not appealed from a final judgment. In its memorandum of decision, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs and indicated that a hearing would be scheduled to determine the amount. ‘In Paranteau v. DeVita, [supra, 208 Conn. 524 n.11], our Supreme Court determined that “[a] supplemental postjudgment award of attorney’s fees becomes final and appealable…not when there is a finding of liability for such fees, but when the amount of fees are conclusively determined.” An award of attorney’s fees without a determination of the amount of the attorney’s fees is not an appealable final judgment…’”)
-
AC30049 — Socci v. Pasiak (“The plaintiff…appeals from the trial court’s denial of her application for a prejudgment attachment of certain property of the defendant…. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly found that payment of any judgment rendered against the defendant was secured adequately by insurance.”)
-
AC29949 — Stein v. Tong (“The defendant…appeals following the denial of her motion to open or to set aside the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, …. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied her motion to open or to set aside the judgment, (2) modified the original judgment in lieu of granting the motion to open or to set aside the judgment, (3) relied on a legal theory that was not pleaded by the plaintiff, (4) found that she had possession and control of the defective sidewalk and stairway where the plaintiff tripped and fell, (5) concluded that there was no abuse of discretion when the court, Graham, J., denied her motion for a continuance and (6) relied on Hartford’s building code to find that a defect existed on the property at issue.”)
-
AC29331 — Swanson v. Groton (“On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly: (1) concluded that governmental immunity barred her negligence claims; (2) rendered judgment in favor of the defendants on her claim of failure to train and supervise; (3) rendered judgment in favor of the defendants on her claim of loss of parental consortium; and (4) denied her motion for articulation and reconsideration.”)
-
AC29642 - Byars v. Berg (“…[T]he plaintiff filed a revised complaint in the present action, alleging, inter alia, fraudulent misrepresentation. Essentially, the plaintiff alleged that because it was not legally constituted, the association and its various agents, including the defendants, lacked the authority either to enter into legally binding contracts or to take legal action on behalf of the association. The plaintiff claimed that he suffered harm from the actions of the defendants that resulted in the association successfully having foreclosed liens against his property.”)
7/31/2009
-
AC29706 - Ma'Ayergi & Associates, LLC v. Pro Search, Inc. (“The plaintiff argues that he properly pleaded a claim of defamation on behalf of himself because, although he alleged injury to his law firm and to his company, he also alleged that the defendants had told prospective clients that he was incompetent and that he could not properly perform abstract of title work. He further argues that the fact that he is the sole member of a limited liability company should not interfere with his right to bring a defamation claim against people or entities who specifically slandered him and ruined his individual professional reputation.”)
-
AC28680 - Beckenstein Enterprises-Prestige Park, LLC v. Keller (“[T]he plaintiffs asserted four counts, sounding in tortious interference with a contract, civil conspiracy, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., respectively. . .
"On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly (1) charged the jury that the statute of limitations served to narrow the actionable claims to only those that arose from wrongful conduct occurring after October 4, 2000, (2) refused to allow the plaintiffs to assert and to prove that an earlier action tolled the statute of limitations, (3) denied the plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their reply and (4) directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”)
-
AC29552 - Pike v. Bugbee (“The plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants…following the granting of their motion to strike the thirteenth count of the complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the count was legally sufficient because (1) the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to protect social invitees on their premises from foreseeable harm, (2) the allegations provided a basis for a claim for parental liability pursuant to General Statutes § 52-572, (3) the allegations of scienter precluded the granting of the motion to strike and (4) the court concluded improperly that liability did not extend to adults who did not take an active part in the procurement or purveyance of alcohol.”)
-
AC29821 - Himmelstein v. Windsor (“On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendant’s motion to strike was not fatally defective, (2) struck his nuisance count, (3) considered certain evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment and (4) granted the motion for summary judgment.”)
-
AC29512 - Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians v. Lorinsky (“The named defendant…claims that (1) the court incorrectly concluded that the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes § 52-592, permitted Viejas’ case to be filed in state court, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s award of damages and (3) the court improperly denied the defendants’ motions for a mistrial and to set aside the verdict.”) 6/30/2009
-
AC28309, AC29468 - Burton v. Stamford
“In AC 28309, the defendant, the city of Stamford, claims that the court abused its discretion in (1) permitting the plaintiff Godfrey Burton to amend his complaint after it had directed a verdict in favor of the defendant and (2) granting the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the directed verdict. In AC 29468, the plaintiff maintains that the court improperly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant in light of its determination that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law on the issue of causation.”
-
AC29484 - Leseburg v. O'Grady
“Rather than appeal from the decrees of a court of probate, the plaintiff chose to pursue a cause of action against the Probate Court judge for civil damages. For more than 200 years, the doctrine of judicial immunity has required dismissal of such actions. This case is no exception.”
-
AC27290, AC27970, AC28442 - Rossman v. Morasco
“In AC 27290 and AC 27970, the plaintiff claims that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) denying his motion to set aside the verdict, (2) denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, (3) denying his motion in limine and (4) granting Guardian Alarm’s motions for punitive damages and for attorney’s fees on its counterclaim alleging a violation of CUTPA. In AC 28442, Guardian Alarm claims that the court improperly denied its posttrial motion for a constructive trust.”
-
AC29626 - Watts v. Chittenden
“The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff…on his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) found that she failed to prove a statute of limitations defense, (2) found that she failed to prove her privilege defense and (3) awarded lost wages to the plaintiff.” 6/25/2009
Machado v. Hartford SC18224 (Defective roadway; "...[W]hether a municipality may be held liable under General Statutes §13a-1491 for injuries caused by a highway defect created by the negligence of a third party contractor hired by the municipality to repair the highway.) 6/8/2009SC17739 - Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which had rendered judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant. Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co., 96 Conn. App. 741, 901 A.2d 1258 (2006). Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that: (1) the trial court properly excluded the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness; and (2) the trial court properly instructed the jury on the superseding cause doctrine.")
6/1/2009
-
AC29829 - Mullin v. Guidant Corp.
[Product Liability] “On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that their two count complaint was preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c et seq. (MDA).”
-
AC29619 - Sturgeon v. Sturgeon
“In this negligence action…the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to set aside the jury’s verdict and for a new trial on the ground that the jury could not have reached its conclusion reasonably and legally, (2) denied his motion on the basis of improper remarks made to the jury by the defendant’s counsel during closing arguments and (3) admitted a hearsay statement, limited the plaintiff’s right to cross-examine the witness regarding that statement and failed to provide curative instructions to the jury.”
-
AC29722 - IN Energy Solutions, Inc. v. Realgy, LLC
“On appeal, Realgy claims that the court improperly calculated the damages it awarded to INES. INES cross appeals, claiming that the court improperly (1) failed to include damages for lost profits in its breach of contract award and failed to rule on INES’ request for certain other damages, (2) construed and applied the law regarding tortious interference with a business relationship, (3) found that it could not prevail on its claim alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., (4) rejected its defamation claim and (5) determined that the defendant Michael Vrtis, the managing director of Realgy, was acting in a corporate capacity and, therefore, could not be held personally liable for his actions.”
American Progressive Life & Health Ins. Co. of New York v. Better Benefits, LLC - SC17940 ("Although the defendants contest the propriety of the granting of the motion for summary judgment on several grounds, the dispositive issue is whether the trial court properly granted the motion when it challenged the legal sufficiency of the counterclaim, and the defendants were not given the opportunity to replead.") 5/22/2009
Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. - SC17807 (Damages for twenty-three cases of alleged sexual abuse; motions to intervene by four newspaper companies; motion to vacate sealing orders issued by trial court; motion to disqualify the judicial authority assigned to hear the intervenors’ motion to vacate the sealing orders; motion for new protective order; presumption of public access pursuant to rule of practice § 11-20A and whether it was limited to judicial documents.)
5/13/2009
Gambardella v. Apple Health Care, Inc. - SC17977 ("The defendants appealed from the judgment of the trial court, claiming that the court improperly had rejected their defense of the qualified privilege for intracorporate communications because it failed to apply an actual malice standard when determining that the defendants had lost the privilege and because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of actual malice.") 5/4/2009
-
AC29507 - Talenti v. Morgan & Brother Manhattan Storage Co.
“The plaintiffs claim that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the defendant maintains its principal place of business in Connecticut, is authorized to do business in Connecticut, accepts service of process in Connecticut and was served properly with process in accordance with General Statutes § 52-57 (c), and they seek redress for acts that took place in Connecticut.”
-
AC29494 - Tutko v. Goodman
“In this negligence action, the pro se plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant…after a jury verdict. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) added great confusion to his presentation of his case, (2) precluded him from presenting the testimony of his treating physician and (3) denied his motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.”
-
AC29152 - Bagg v. Thompson
“The plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her complaint brought against the defendant town of Thompson pursuant to General Statutes § 13a-149, the municipal highway defect statute. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that it was without subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of its incorrect determination that the defendant municipality possessed sovereign, rather than governmental, immunity.”
-
AC29598 - Tuccio Development, Inc. v. Neumann
[CUTPA; Statutory Theft] “The plaintiff…appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant…. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact, thus entitling the defendant to judgment as a matter of law.” 4/9/2009
Sylvan Shemitz Designs, Inc. v. Newark Corp. - SC17998 ("Under General Statutes §§ 52-572m (d) and 52-572n (c) of the Connecticut Product Liability Act (act); see General Statutes § 52-572m et seq.; commercial losses, in contrast to damage to property, are not recoverable in a product liability action as between commercial parties. In this case, Elliptipar, Inc. (Elliptipar), a division of the plaintiff company, Sylvan R. Shemitz Designs, Inc. (plaintiff), sold to its customers a product containing a defective part that had been manufactured by the defendant General Electric Company (General Electric) and the defendant Regal-Beloit Corporation (Regal). Thereafter, the plaintiff incurred costs for replacing the part and otherwise repairing damage to its product that had been caused by the defective part. The issue presented by this appeal is whether, under the act, those costs constitute damage to property and, therefore, are recoverable by the plaintiff against the defendants, or whether the costs represent unrecoverable commercial losses.") 3/31/2009
-
AC28181 - Washington v. Ivancic
“The plaintiff…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered upon the granting of the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff’s complaint was barred by a statute of limitations. The court also denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeking judgment as to liability. We conclude that the statute of limitations does not bar the plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim…”
-
AC28841 - Pagan v. Gonzalez
“The pro se plaintiff…appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant…an attorney admitted pro hac vice to the bar of the state of Connecticut for the purpose of representing the plaintiff in an underlying criminal matter. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the motion for summary judgment with respect to whether (1) the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, General Statutes § 52-577, and (2) the plaintiff was required to present expert witness testimony to prevail.”
-
AC29264 - Langewisch v. New England Residential Services, Inc.
“The plaintiffs…appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to open the judgment dismissing their wrongful death claim against the defendant New England Residential Services, Inc. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the court improperly (1) failed to set aside the judgment of dismissal, (2) found that the plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of proof to open the judgment, (3) failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to establish the factual basis of the defendant’s claim regarding the plaintiffs’ noncompliance with the court’s discovery orders and (4) failed to conclude that the defendant waived the right to object to the opening of the judgment of dismissal.”
-
AC29308 - Sequenzia v. Guerrieri Masonry, Inc.
“The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court, following a jury verdict, in favor of the plaintiff John Sequenzia. Although the defendant’s brief primarily focuses on the findings of the court as set forth in the court’s postverdict memorandum of decision on the defendant’s post-trial motions, rather than focusing on the merits of the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the defendant’s motion for a new trial, and is inadequate in that regard, we do agree with its claim that it was entitled to a new trial after the court charged the jury on a specification of common-law negligence for which there had been no evidence.” 3/18/2009
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc. (SC18199) (Declaratory judgment; subject matter jurisdiction; ripeness; asbestos litigation; action for declaratory relief to determine parties' rights and obligations with respect to settlement agreement.) 3/2/2009
-
AC28396 - Garrigus v. Viarengo
“The defendant claims that the court improperly found that the plaintiff satisfied the heightened burden of proof with respect to his claim of fraud and the elements necessary for the imposition of a constructive trust.”
-
AC28506 - Blinkoff v. O & G Industries, Inc.
“The plaintiff’s one count complaint alleged a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and contained eight allegations. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment as to all of the allegations.”
-
AC28703 - Blacker v. Crapo
“The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that he violated CUTPA, (2) concluded that he breached his contract with the plaintiffs and (3) found that he received a certified letter from the plaintiffs’ attorney before beginning work on the plaintiffs’ roof.”
-
AC29030 - Urich v. Fish
“The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) awarded additional attorney’s fees to the defendant even though he was not a prevailing party under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and (2) concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to postjudgment interest on his 1998 judgment.” 1/30/2009
Below are the tort law Appellate Court opinions issued in January 2009:
-
AC29188 — Davis v. Davis
"The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the mutual release provision in the marital dissolution agreement signed by the plaintiff and Richard Davis precluded a subsequent tort claim against a former spouse and a third party, (2) concluded that the defendants’ conduct was not sufficiently 'extreme and outrageous' to support her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and (3) construed 'extreme and outrageous' conduct as a necessary element to her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress."
-
AC29237 — Byrne v. Burke
"On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded, as a matter of law, (1) on the civil conspiracy count against Burke, that the plaintiff’s cause of action was time barred; (2) on the breach of fiduciary duty count, that the plaintiff did not establish that Burke owed him a fiduciary duty; (3) on the civil conspiracy count against Burke, that Burke’s deposition testimony in a probate hearing and testimony during a court hearing were not inconsistent; (4) on the vexatious litigation count, that the Probate Court’s ruling, in favor of Spurling’s client, is conclusive evidence of probable cause to initiate probate proceedings; (5) on the vexatious litigation count, that the plaintiff did not prove a claim for vexatious litigation; and (6) on the civil conspiracy count against Spurling, that the plaintiff’s conspiracy count was based on the same facts that the court relied on to dismiss the vexatious litigation count."
-
AC28928 — Tocco v. Wesleyan University
“The issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff obtained proper service on the association. The plaintiff claims proper service was made on the association in accordance with General Statutes § 52-102b (d) by mailing to the association a copy of her second amended complaint at a time when no appearance had been filed on behalf of the association. The court, however, agreed with the association that the plaintiff had failed to make proper service according to Practice Book §§ 10-12 (c) and 10-13 as required, and, therefore, it dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint as to the association.”
-
AC28387 — Peatie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
“The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) bound her ‘in lieu of’ attorney to the scheduling order agreed to by her previous attorney, (2) refused to lift a protective order, (3) excluded some of the testimony of her expert from the jury’s consideration, (4) included a jury instruction regarding the calculation of economic damages and (5) was biased in favor of the defendant.”
-
AC29477 — Kosiorek v. Smigelski
"On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) found that there was probable cause to grant the prejudgment remedy, improperly taking into consideration the decision of the Probate Court, and (2) issued a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $54,833.33 without taking into consideration any potential defenses or counterclaims."
-
AC28995 — Benedetto v. Zaku
“The only issue in this personal injury case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial after the defendant insurance carrier refused to accept an additur to supplement the verdict in favor of the plaintiff.”
-
AC29344 — Piteo v. Gottier
“The sole question in this appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded that there was no tolling of the statute of limitations applicable to tort claims because of the continuous representation of a client by an investment advisor.” 1/5/2009
Below are the tort law Appellate Court opinions issued in December 2008:
-
AC29147 - Tuccio Development, Inc. v. Neumann
[Summary Judgment; CUTPA] “The plaintiff challenges the court’s holdings that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that Neumann was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
-
AC29211 - Fontanella v. Housing Authority
[Summary Judgment; Personal Injury; Notice Requirement of General Statutes § 8-67] “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that there exists a genuine issue of material fact, which precludes summary judgment.” 10/31/2008
Below is a list of tort law Appellate Court opinions issued in October 2008:
-
AC28644 - Schweiger v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co. (“On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that she failed to present sufficient evidence to remove the issues of negligence and proximate cause from the realm of conjecture, speculation or surmise so as to survive the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict for failure to establish a prima facie case.”)
-
AC28523 - Read v. Plymouth (includes dissent)
“On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) struck counts of his complaint on the basis that General Statutes § 13a-149 is the exclusive remedy for a highway defect claim and (2) rendered summary judgment on the remaining count on the basis of its conclusion that the location of his fall was not a public highway within the purview of § 13a-149.”
-
AC28821 - Hollister v. Thomas (“On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly struck portions of his fourth amended complaint.”)
-
AC28962 - Wilderman v. Powers (“The defendant and third party plaintiff [challenge] the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the third party defendant, Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The third party plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) considered evidence that had not been authenticated and would not have been admissible at trial and (2) concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the injuries alleged by the plaintiffs . . . were caused by criminal acts committed by the third party plaintiff.”)
-
AC28948 - Cadle Co. v. D'Addario (“The plaintiff, the Cadle Company, appeals from the judgment of dismissal rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, David D’Addario and Lawrence D’Addario, both individually and as executors of the estate of F. Francis D’Addario (decedent). The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of its determination that the claims were unripe for adjudication.”)
AC28961 - Cue Associates, LLC v. Cast Iron Associates, LLC ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly applied the statute of limitations found in General Statutes § 52-577 to bar the plaintiff’s trespass claim, when the defendant did not plead this statute of limitations as a special defense.") 10/27/2008
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v, Cooperman- SC18084
(Fraudulent Conveyance; statute of limitations; insurance; defendant (Steven) reported paintings insured by plaintiffs as having been stolen; defendant (Steven) then filed a claim for the loss; defendant (Steven) was later charged with various fraud charges stemming from his insurance claims against the plaintiffs; "[p]laintiffs' claim that the trial court improperly concluded that the sale of assets did not constitute a fraudulent transfer. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the trial court improperly: (1) concluded that Nancy paid Steven $2.6 million when she legally did not own the funds that she transferred to him because they represented her interest in the proceeds of Steven's insurance fraud; (2) failed to recognize the effect of Steven's community property interest in the Lagunitas share in determining whether there had been a reasonably equivalent exchange in value;(3) failed ot consider Nancy's federal tax liability in determining whether there had been a reasonably equivalent exchange in value; and (4) applied a subjective measure of value in determining whether there had been a reasonably equivalent exchange of value.")
7/11/2008
Rivers v. New Britain, SC17863 [dissent]
(Negligence; Sovereign Immunity; Municipalities; Whether City Ordinance Adopted Pursuant to General Statutes § 7-163a Relieves City of Liability for Fall on an Icy Public Sidewalk Where Property Abutting the Sidewalk is Owned by the State.) 7/8/2008
Rhode v. Milla - SC17860 (Negligence; Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination; Whether Evidence of Medical Treatment Received by the Plaintiff Should be Excluded Where the Medical Provider Invokes his Fifth Amendment Privilege and Refuses to Testify; Whether Jury Should be Instructed that Adverse Inference may be Drawn Against Witness in a Civil Case who Refuses to Testify on Fifth Amendment Grounds.) 6/16/2008
Hicks v. State- SC18050 (Negligence; action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as result of negligent operation of department of transportation truck; contributory negligence; whether plaintiff proved negligent "operation" of state motor vehicle as required by statute (§52-556) waiving state's sovereign immunity; whether testimony by expert regarding out-of-court statements of eyewitness contained inadmissible hearsay; whether trial court improperly granted motion in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiff's misconduct at work relating to dishonesty; use of misconduct evidence to impeach plaintiff's veracity as to claimed lack of memory).
Bhatia v. Debek- SC18000 (Malicious prosecution; claim that defendant mother, who had falsely accused plaintiff father of sexually assaulting their minor child, was immune from liability for malicious prosecution because she allegedly acted in good faith; whether plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to establish elements of malicious prosecution claim; claim that trial court's award of compensatory and punitive damages was unsupported by evidence; malicious prosecution and vexatious litigation, distinguished). 6/9/2008
Jaiguay v. Vasquez - SC17814 (Workers' Compensation; Choice of Law; Whether Court Properly Concluded that New York Workers' Compensation law Applied to bar Wrongful Death Action Against Co-Employee and Employer.) 5/27/2008
Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. - SC17797 (Class actions; motion for class certification; unfair trade practices; whether plaintiffs satisfied predominance requirement of PB § 9-8; whether generalized evidence could be used to prove that defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices that caused putative class members to suffer ascertainable losses, in violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act). 5/15/2008
State v. Peters - SC17855 (Medicaid; Whether State was Entitled to Collect the Entire Amount of a Medicaid Lien Without a Pro Rata Reduction for the Attorney's Fees Incurred by the Medicaid Recipient in Pursuing a Claim Against a Third Party Tortfeasor.) [Docket Summary] 5/9/2008
- Archambault v. Soneco/Northeastern, Inc. SC 17845 [Personal Injury; negligence; jury instructions; whether contractor should have been permitted to introduce evidence that subcontractor's negligent conduct was the sole proximate cause of injuries sustained by subcontractor's employees; whether subcontractor owed subcontractor's employees a nondelegable duty to keep a construction site safe] [docket summary]
4/14/2008
Pelletier v. Sordoni/Skanska Construction Co. - SC17775 [Negligence; Whether State Building Code Imposed an Obligation upon a General Contractor to Inspect Steel Welds made by a Subcontractor; Whether a Violation of the Building Code Constitutes Negligence Per Se.] 4/3/2008There was one Connecticut Supreme Court opinion released today
- Lopes v. Farmer - SC17901 [docket summary] [Malicious prosecution; summary judgment; whether plaintiff's claim was time barred by applicable statute of limitations (§ 52-577); whether limitation period in § 52-277 commenced when plaintiff was arrested or when criminal charges against him were dismissed.]
3/17/2008
Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church - SC17672 [docket summary - Dog Bite Statute; Whether the Defendant was the Dog's "Keeper" Within Meaning of General Statutes § 22-357; Whether the Trial Court Improperly Admitted Evidence of the Defendant's Insurance Coverage.]
3/3/2008There was one Connecticut Supreme Court opinion released today:
- Jim's Auto Body v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles - SC17758 [docket summary] (Administrative appeal; appeal from decision of defendant commissioner of motor vehicles finding that plaintiff automobile body repair shop had violated certain motor vehicle laws in course of repairing motor vehicle and ordering that plaintiff pay civil penalty; claim that insurance company was not ``customer'' within meaning of statute (§ 14-63 [b]).)
2/19/2008
Kramer v. Petisi - SC17549 [Docket Summary - Property; Negligent Misrepresentation; Comparative Negligence; Whether the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence Applies to Cases Concerning the Negligent Misrepresentation of Property Boundary Lines.] 2/15/2008
One Connecticut Supreme Court opinion was released today:
- Allen v. Cox - SC17763 [docket summary] (Tort; negligence; foreseeability; whether, in action to recover injuries resulting from a cat attack, the plaintiff must prove that the owner knew or should have known that the cat had attacked a person before).
1/25/2008
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Paradis - SC17756, SC17757 [Insurance; Whether General Statutes § 31-293a Mandates That Employer's Umbrella Coverage Apply to Employee Involved in Car Accident; Whether Terms of Policy Were Ambiguous With Respect to Definition of Insured.]
[docket summary] 1/11/2008
American Promotional Events, Inc. v. Blumenthal - SC17868 ("The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether the trial court correctly concluded that a firework known and marketed as 'Piccolo Pete' is a 'fountain' within the meaning of § 29-3561 and, therefore, exempt from the general prohibition against fireworks contained in § 29- 357".) 12/3/2007Mahon v. B.V. Unitron Mfg., Inc. - SC17410, SC17411 (Products liability; comparative negligence; remittitur; claim that trial court improperly failed to instruct jury on the standard of care applicable to conduct of plaintiff's decedent in connection with defendant manufacturer's special defense of comparative negligence; whether improper instruction was harmful; whether trial court must reduce jury's award of damages by amount that plaintiff receives in settlement payments pursuant to statute (§52-216a)). 11/28/2007
Fleming v. Bridgeport - SC17627 ("The named plaintiff, Sylvia Fleming, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court holding that: (1) the individual defendants James Dixon and Susie Dixon (Dixons), the owners of a multifamily house in which the plaintiff occupied an apartment, did not violate Connecticut’s entry and detainer statute, General Statutes § 47a-43, by requesting that the police remove the plaintiff from the apartment on May 7, 1998; and (2) the municipal defendants, the city of Bridgeport (city) and several of its police officers, were entitled to qualified immunity for allegations that they unlawfully had removed the plaintiff from that apartment on both May 7 and May 8, 1998. Fleming v. Bridgeport, 92 Conn. App. 400, 404, 407, 886 A.2d 1220 (2005).") 11/16/2007
Gallo v. Barile - SC17405 (Defamation; intentional infliction of emotional distress; summary judgment; absolute and qualified privilege. "The dispositive issue raised by this appeal is whether statements made to the police in connection with a criminal investigation are absolutely privileged or qualifiedly privileged.") 11/7/2007
Mystic Color Lab, Inc. v. Auctions Worldwide, LLC - SC17838 (Auctions; breach of contract; common-law conversion; statutory (§ 52-564) theft; treble damages; whether relationship between auctioneer and seller gives rise to fiduciary duty of auctioneer to hold auction proceeds in trust for seller; whether trial court incorrectly determined that defendants were liable to plaintiff for common-law conversion and statutory theft; whether trial court improperly awarded plaintiff treble damages; whether defendant auctioneer's relationship with plaintiff seller was one of debtor and creditor or one of bailee and bailor; whether plaintiff had property interest in proceeds from auction that defendant auctioneer had conducted for plaintiff). 11/5/2007
Allison v. Manetta - SC17833
(Negligence; action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from plaintiff's collision with tractor trailer caused by state owned motor vehicle partially obstructing roadway; motion to set aside verdict; motion for directed verdict; motion to dismiss; sovereign immunity; whether trial court improperly determined that state employee's stopping or parking of vehicle did not constitute operation of motor vehicle for purposes of statute ( §52-556) entitling plaintiff to recover damages; reversal of dismissal against state by Appellate Court; whether trial court improperly failed to instruct jury that, pursuant to Rivera v. Fox (20 Conn. App. 619), state immune from liability if truck being used as warning device or protective barrier at time of accident; standard of review of jury instructions; whether incomplete jury instruction constituted harmful error; whether trial court improperly denied requested instruction on statutes ( §14-251, §14-290) exempting certain operators of equipment from prohibition against parking on highways where plaintiff's complaint alleged only negligence.) |
|
|
|