7/2/2009
We will be closed on Friday, July 3 in observance of Independence Day. Regular hours resume on Monday, July 6. For future reference, there is a complete list of holiday court closings posted online.
Waterbury Twin, LLC v. Renal Treatment Centers-Northeast, Inc. - SC18218 (“The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a landlord, after withdrawing its complaint in a summary process action, is required to serve a new notice to quit pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-231 prior to filing a new summary process action against its tenant.”)
7/1/2009
- Backgrounder: History of State Action in Absence of Budget Before the Beginning of a New Fiscal Year - 2009-R-0255
As a result of the recent financial crisis, states are facing unprecedented budgeting challenges. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 46 states begin their new fiscal year on July 1, 2009. Of these, six are currently awaiting executive action on their budgets and at least seven, including Connecticut, have had to extend their legislative sessions or enter into special session for the purpose of adopting FY 2010 budgets. NCSL's research indicates that in almost half of the states in the country, the government could shut down if a budget is not passed by the beginning of the fiscal year. Approaches vary in the remaining states, including temporary budgets adopted by the legislature and full or partial continuing payments based on statutory or constitutional authority. Some states have never had to deal with this situation. This report explores the procedures that might be applicable in Connecticut in the absence of a budget based on the two most recent examples.
- Hospital Emergency Medical Treatment for Indigent People - 2009-R-0248
You asked for a summary of laws governing how hospitals must treat indigent people who present with emergency conditions, particularly those governing their transferring such people to other facilities.
- Clubs, Cafes, Restaurants, and Taverns - 2009-R-0244
You asked for the type of liquor permit a social club can hold and how that permit differs from other permits allowing the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption.
- Federal and State Sex Offender Laws - 2009-R-0240
You asked about four things concerning sex offender registries:
-
information about the federal law;
-
if any action is pending in Congress to adopt a national sex offender registry;
-
how Connecticut law resembles the Adam Walsh Act; and
-
if there are any proposed or recent changes to the Connecticut sexual offender registry. 6/30/2009
Below is a list of medical malpractice Appellate Court opinions issued in June 2009:
AC29597 - Sawicki v. New Britain General Hospital ("The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly denied her motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial on the basis of juror misconduct. In response, the defendant claims, as an alternate ground for affirmance, that if the court had precluded the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness as requested, the plaintiff could not have met her burden of persuasion, entitling the defendant to a directed verdict.")
AC29687 - Cockayne v. Pilon ("In this professional negligence action, the plaintiff... appeals to this court following the denial of her motion to open the judgment of dismissal rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Philip Pilon, her former dentist. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion in denying her motion to open.")
Below is a list of criminal law Appellate Court opinions issued in June 2009:
AC29027 - State v. Luther ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) his federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial were violated when a state’s witness testified in violation of the trial court’s ruling that granted the defendant’s motion in limine to preclude certain testimony, (2) his federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial were violated due to prosecutorial impropriety, and (3) the court improperly instructed the jury regarding consciousness of guilt.")
AC29905 - State v. Graves ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his pretrial motion to suppress evidence of a brown paper bag containing marijuana because it improperly (1) determined that a police officer was in ‘‘hot pursuit’’ of the defendant and therefore did not need a warrant to conduct a search, (2) concluded that the officer, a municipal police officer from Rhode Island, was permitted to conduct police activities in Connecticut and (3) failed to hold that the officer’s search of an open field, which revealed the bag, was illegal because of the officer’s out-of-state status and because no exigent circumstances were present..")
AC29769 - State v. Alexander ("This appeal concerns the contours of the protections provided by the fourth amendment to the federal constitution. The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a conditional plea of nolo contendere pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a, of possession of more than one kilogram of marijuana with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b), interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a (a), forgery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-139 (a) (3) and possession of marijuana with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress certain evidence after concluding improperly that he had failed to sustain his burden of establishing a subjective expectation of privacy in a common hallway in the apartment building in which he lived.")
AC28755 - State v. Richard W. ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to establish that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree, (2) he was prejudiced by prosecutorial impropriety, (3) his right to due process was violated by expert witness testimony as to the ultimate issue and (4) the state violated his state and federal constitutional rights by failing to disclose exculpatory information as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963).")
AC27807 - State v. Martin M. ("On appeal, the defendant first claims that the kidnapping statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. He also claims that the trial court (1) improperly failed to disclose fully all relevant material for cross-examination following an in camera review of certain confidential records, (2) allowed hearsay testimony of a nurse practitioner under the medical testimony exception to the hearsay rule and (3) improperly considered the recidivism rate of sexual predators in sentencing the defendant in violation of his constitutional rights.")
AC28925 - State v. Fernandes ("The sole issue on appeal is whether the transfer of the defendant’s case from the docket for juvenile matters to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court followed the requirements of the juvenile transfer statute and due process.")
AC28855 - State v. Schiller ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of twelve counts of identity theft in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 53a-129a and five counts of identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-129d. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the state’s improper comments during closing argument to the jury deprived him of a fair trial.")
AC28974 - State v. Sligh ("On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the finding of a violation of probation.") Concurrence
AC28535 - State v. Chimenti ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the state pre- sented insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) his fifth amendment right against double jeopardy was violated when he was acquitted of assault in the first degree in violation of
General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1) and subsequently con- victed of the lesser included offense of reckless assault in the second degree. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC28483 - State v. Franklin ("The defendant... appeals fromthe judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-59 (a) (5) and 53a-8. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC28209 - State v. Saez ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction of larceny in the sixth degree. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC25786 - State v. Kamel ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his constitutional right to counsel when it failed to conduct an inquiry into his allegation that he was indigent, (2) improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of a bag that belonged to him and (3) failed to conduct a preliminary on the record inquiry after learning that the jury was exposed during its deliberations to brass knuckles, which were marked for identification but not admitted into evidence as an exhibit.")
AC29352 - State v. Palangio ("He claims on appeal that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, (2) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of robbery in the first degree as an accessory, (3) the charge to the jury on robbery in the first degree deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial and (4) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence written statements of an accomplice.")
AC28819 - State v. Coccomo ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of three counts of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 53a-56b (a), three counts of misconduct with a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 53a- 57 and one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly admitted evidence of her blood alcohol content, (2) there was insufficient evidence to sustain her conviction and (3) the court improperly admitted consciousness of guilt evidence.") Concurrence
AC30422 - State v. Martinez ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Enrique Martinez, the defendant, a continuance to secure the services of counsel of his choice in violation of his rights under the sixth amendment to the federal constitution.")
AC29003 - State v. Thomas W. ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) § 53-21 (a) (1) is void for vagueness, (2) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the four counts of which he was convicted and (3) the court made improper remarks to the jury, placing the burden of proof on him.")
AC28070 - State v. Varela ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial by jury, of accessory to larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 and 53a-122 (a) (2), conspiracy to commit larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-122 (a) (2) and accessory to burglary in the third degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 and 53a-103. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction on each of the
charges because the state could not prove her involvement in the crimes.")
AC29362 - State v. Oliphant ("The defendant... appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and committing him to the custody of the commissioner of correction for six and one-half years. The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) restricted his cross-examination of the complaining witness, (2) refused to apply the exclusionary rule, (3) concluded that the evidence was sufficient to determine that he had violated his probation and (4) revoked his probation.")
AC28992 - State v. Boyd ("On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury on the doctrine of nonexclusive possession with regard to the firearm and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction.")
-
AC29862 - Celini v. Celini
[Child Support] “The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the postjudgment motion for contempt filed by the plaintiff…. The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) found him liable for certain extracurricular activity and college expenses of his children, (2) found him in contempt and (3) awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the plaintiff.”
-
AC30430 - Clark v. Clark
[Dissolution of Marriage] “In this matter, we are asked to address the right of former counsel to intervene as a party in a marital dissolution action. The proposed intervenor, the law firm of Rutkin and Oldham, LLC (Rutkin), appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion to intervene as a party defendant. We raised the question on the court’s own motion of whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of a final judgment because the proposed intervenor cannot make a colorable claim to intervention as a matter of right.”
-
AC29274 - Dionne v. Dionne
[Child Support] “The determinative issue in this appeal is whether a trial court properly may continue a hearing on a motion for contempt when the alleged contemnor’s attorney represents to the court that the court-ordered child support payment is ‘in the mail.’”
-
AC29063 - Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld
[Dissolution of Marriage] “Trial courts have inherent power to manage their caseloads in order to achieve the expeditious disposition of cases. See Krevis v. Bridgeport, 262 Conn. 813, 819, 817 A.2d 628 (2003); In re Mongillo, 190 Conn. 686, 691, 461 A.2d 1387 (1983), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Salmon, 250 Conn. 147, 154–55, 735 A.2d 333 (1999). Accordingly, a defendant’s constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his choice does not grant a defendant an unlimited opportunity to obtain alternate counsel on the eve of trial. See State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 725, 631 A.2d 288 (1993). The dispositive issue in this marital dissolution case is whether these principles govern the defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his last minute motion for a continuance to enable him to come to this state from Antigua to act as his own counsel in substitution for prior counsel of his choice.”
-
AC29863 - Senk v. Senk
[Dissolution of Marriage] “The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a limited contested trial, dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff…. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) failed to recuse itself from the case after hearing another matter involving the defendant, (2) failed to take into account the evidence in the record as a whole and (3) allowed the submission of evidence that was irrelevant and prejudicial to the defendant.”
-
AC30812 - Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler
[Dissolution of Marriage] “This appeal arises from the judgment of the trial court dissolving the parties’ marriage. The defendant…claims that the court improperly denied his motions to continue the dissolution trial until after the disposition of a pending criminal case charging him with intentionally setting fire to property owned by the plaintiff…. He argues that the court’s denials deprived him of the opportunity to present a defense in the dissolution action, thereby depriving him of his constitutional due process rights, because he invoked his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”
-
AC29053 - In re S.D.
“This appeal arises out of a termination of parental rights petition filed by the petitioner, the mother of the minor child, in the Court of Probate for the district of East Hartford pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-715. Following the termination of his parental rights as to the child, the respondent, the child’s father, appealed from that judgment to the trial court, which again terminated his parental rights. On appeal to this court, the respondent claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to find that reasonable efforts were made to locate and to reunite him with the child, (2) found that he had abandoned the child and that there was no ongoing parent-child relationship and (3) found that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate his parental rights.”
-
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.”
-
AC29572 - Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Randall (“The plaintiffs…appeal from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant…in an action for the enforcement of a nonsolicitation agreement in an employment contract. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly determined that the nonsolicitation agreement was unenforceable and meaningless.”)
Below is a legal malpractice and attorney discipline Appellate Court opinion issued in June 2009:
-
AC29584 - Rosenblit v. Laschever (“The defendant…appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following its granting of the motion for judgment filed by the substitute plaintiff…. The plaintiff’s motion asked the court to enter a judgment in the amount of $15,000 in his favor on the basis of a settlement agreement between the parties. The defendant argues on appeal that the court improperly concluded that the agreement entered into by the parties was a binding settlement agreement.”) 6/29/2009State v. Tabone - SC18119 ("On appeal, the defendant claims that his total effective sentence after remand is illegal because: (1) the substitution of a ten year term of probation for the ten year period of special parole that originally was imposed unconstitutionally enlarged the sentence in violation of his due process rights under the federal and state constitutions; (2) the sentence was predicated on a personal agreement between the trial court and the state’s attorney in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) § 53a-32 (b) (4) and the separation of powers doctrine; and (3) the sentence violates the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States constitution and the Connecticut constitution.")
Public Act 09-233
Public Act 09-234
Public Act 09-235
Public Act 09-236
Public Act 09-237
Public Act 09-238
Public Act 09-239
Public Act 09-240
Public Act 09-241
Public Act 09-242
Public Act 09-243
Eight Connecticut Appellate Court opinions will be released today. See the Connecticut Judicial Branch website for the list of case names and links to the full text of the opinions after 11:30 a.m. After today, the opinions will be available from the Appellate Court Archive. 6/26/2009
Bayer v. Showmotion (SC18227) (Summary process; motion to dismiss; whether defect in notice to quit deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction; whether the court should have dismissed, or in the alternative stayed the action on the basis of the prior pending action doctrine; whether court's oral finding that the defendant had not exercised its option to purchase the property was clearly erroneous.) 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.)
Dias v. Grady - SC18265 (Medical malpractice; motion to dismiss; whether CGS §52-190a required plaintiff to attach written opinion addressing causation of injury.) 6/24/2009
- Cottage Communities and Mobile Manufactured Home Parks- 2009-R-0230
You asked for a comparison of the statutory rights of a cottage association resident who owns the cottage and leases its lot with those of a mobile manufactured home park resident who owns the mobile manufactured home and leases its lot.
- Insurance Producer Offering Insurance Fee 2009-R-0015
You asked if an insurance producer can legally offer a referral fee to an unlicensed person and, if so, when this became permissible.
Ten Connecticut Appellate Court opinions will be released today. See the Connecticut Judicial Branch website for the list of case names and links to the full text of the opinions after 11:30 a.m. After today, the opinions will be available from the Appellate Court Archive. American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts 3d has released volume 107, which includes the following five articles:
- Proof of Unpaid Overtime Under Fair Labor Standards Act
- Proof of Contempt for Violation of Bankruptcy Discharge Injuction (11 U.S.C.A Sec. 524(a) (2)) by Individual Debtor.
- Proof of Discretionary Function Exception in Action Brought Pursuant to Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)
- Duress, Coercion, or Undue Influence in Execution of Separation Agreement (superseding 6 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 741)
- Slip and Fall Due to Foreign Substance on Floor (superseding 28 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 16)
To determine whether a law library near you has an up-to-date set, contact your local law library or click here for our catalog listing. 6/22/2009
Public Act 09-210
Public Act 09-211
Public Act 09-212
Public Act 09-213
Public Act 09-214
Public Act 09-215
Public Act 09-216
Public Act 09-217
Public Act 09-218
Public Act 09-219
Public Act 09-220
Public Act 09-221
Public Act 09-222
Public Act 09-223
Public Act 09-224
The State Library will be closed to the public on Mondays for the summer. Effective July 1, the new public service hours for the Library will be Tuesday through Friday 9-5 and Saturday 9-2. The Museum of Connecticut History’s hours are not affected. The Museum’s hours will remain Monday through Friday 9-4 and Saturday 9-3. Both the Library and Museum will be closed July 3 and 4 in celebration of Independence Day. 6/19/2009
State v. Coward - SC17706 (Manslaughter first degree in violation of § 53a-55 (a) (3); conspiracy to commit robbery; lesser included offense charge; "On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) we should vacate his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree because reckless manslaughter predicated on criminal liability under the doctrine set forth in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, (1946), is not a cognizable crime under Connecticut law; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the concept of consciousness of guilt; and (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the applicable reasonable doubt standard.") |
|
|
|