11/19/2009The Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has issued the following reports:
- Juvenile Justice Legislation 2001-2009 - 2009-R-0411
You asked for a timeline of juvenile justice legislation. This report supplements 2000-R-0816, which chronologically describes the legislation enacted between 1995 and 2000.
- Gag Order and Inmate Visits and Communication - 2009-R-0414
You asked about the (1) gag order imposed in the Cheshire murder case and (2) Department of Correction's (DOC) policies on visitation and written communication with inmates. We understand that your interest is based on visits from an author to one of the defendants in the Cheshire murder case and communications between them.
- Medicare Coverage - 2009-R-0380
You asked for a detailed description of what Medicare covers and a comparison of Medicare coverage and recently proposed and enacted state health insurance benefit mandates. 11/18/2009
Wilcox v. Webster Ins., Inc. - SC18317 (“The named plaintiff, David R. Wilcox, and the plaintiff Shaun A. Wilcox, appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of their claims against the defendant Acadia Insurance Company. The plaintiffs assert that the trial court improperly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The defendant responds that the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the trial court’s decision should be affirmed on the alternative ground that the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendant are moot.”)
Seven Connecticut Appellate Court opinions are scheduled to 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 today, the opinions will be available from the Appellate Court Archive. 11/17/2009
The Connecticut State Library has posted the full-text of legislative histories for selected landmark Connecticut legislation. These legislative histories can be found in the library’s Digital Collections. The links below are direct links to the histories. To download the full-text of each volume in PDF format, choose the “complete print version” from the “view” drop-down menu on the left side of the Digital Collections screen.
-
An Act Concerning Revision and Codification of the Substantive Criminal Law, 1969 Public Act No. 828 — i.e. The Penal Code
Volume 1 ~ Volume 2 ~ Volume 3 ~ Volume 4
(“This is the act which compiled the criminal law of Connecticut into a Penal Code. The delayed effective date of 1971 permitted the legal community to study the new law. The Commission to Revise the Criminal Statutes revised and codified the substantive criminal law and did not address the problems of criminal procedure. This act codified the common law principles of criminal liability, created the new concept of an affirmative defense, and eliminated the common law right to forcefully resist arrest. The act established a system of five felonies and four misdemeanors with uniform penalties.”)
An Act Concerning Product Liability Actions, 1979 Public Act No. 483
("During the 1970's the rising price of product liability insurance was deemed to have created an unfavorable climate for manufacturing and commerce. The General Assembly sought to remedy this situation by codifying various common law approaches to product liability. The act also applied a single statute of limitations for all claims and simplified the types of defenses which would apply. Other changes included: (1) a provision for punitive damages and attorney fees in certain circumstances; (2) an all-encompassing comparative responsibility standard; (3) changes in the rights of plaintiffs and defendants with respect to provision of workers' compensation and compensation payments; (4) change in duty to warn; and (5) change in the law of indemnity and contribution.”)
-
An Act Concerning the Death Penalty, 1995 Public Act No. 19
Volume 1 ~ Volume 2
(“This is the legislative history of the act which provides that the death sentence shall be imposed on a defendant in a capital felony case if the aggravating factor or factors outweigh the mitigating factor or factors. Previously the death penalty could not be imposed if there were at least one mitigating factor or no aggravating factors. Previously there was also no requirement to weigh the factors against each other. This act also eliminates ‘unusual and substantial duress’ as one of the five automatic bars to the death penalty and instead redefines ‘unusual and substantial duress’ as a mitigating factor.”) 11/16/2009
Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction - SC18315 ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly found that he had procedurally defaulted with regard to his claims challenging the sufficiency of his plea canvass and the state’s breach of his plea agreement that his sentences would be 'fully' concurrent. The petitioner also claims that the habeas court improperly determined that he was not entitled to one day of sentence credit under General Statutes § 18-98d (a) (2) (A). Finally, he claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that he had been deprived of his right to appeal because he had not been given notice of that right.") 11/13/2009
The Supreme Court Database builds on work begun 20 years ago by political science professor Harold J. Spaeth and others.
Funded by the National Science Foundation, this newest iteration of professor Spaeth’s work offers a revamped interface with interactive search tools that make queries such as "How often has the Supreme Court declared acts of congress unconstitutional?" possible, thus widening the audience that will find this database of Supreme Court statistics and opinions (currently 1953-2008 terms) helpful. The website also features a helpful series of tutorials that guide the new user in effective use of the various search features. 11/9/2009
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.") AC30147 - Diaz v. Pineda ("On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the board improperly (1) affirmed the commissioner’s findings that he was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits or additional medical treatment and (2) denied his motion to submit additional evidence.")
Marshall v. Sawicki SC18225 (Plaintiff retained defendant, a business broker to help him sell his catering business; fiduciary duty; ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant did not provide an adequate record for review to determine whether the trial court had shifted the burden of proof to the defendant to prove fair dealing?’’)
AC29092 Red 11, LLC v. Conservation Commission (Statutory farming exemption to town inland wetlands regulations; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed its appeals because the commission lacked jurisdiction to uphold the cease and desist orders, (2) dismissed the appeals because it misinterpreted the statutory limitations on the farming exemption contained in General Statutes § 22a-40 (a) (1) and (3) determined that there was sufficient evidence tosupport the commission’s decisions upholding the issuance of the cease and desist orders.")
AC29251 Cimino v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Denial of request for variances; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly found that (1) the parcel at issue was not a preexisting, nonconforming use, (2) the variances were denied properly because there was no hardship, (3) the property is not worthless without the variances and (4) the variances were not consistent with the town’s master plan of development.")
AC30051 Curran v. Zoning Board of Appeals (Variance; hardship; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly found that the record provides substantial evidence for a finding of hardship."
Four Connecticut Appellate Court opinions are scheduled to 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 today, the opinions will be available from the Appellate Court Archive. 11/6/2009
- Veterans' Property Tax Exemption - 2009-R-0348
You asked if military disability payments and military pension count as income for purposes of the veterans' property tax exemptions provided by law.
- Acts Affecting Education
This report provides highlights of new laws affecting education enacted during the 2009 regular and special legislative sessions.
- Acts Affecting Taxes
This report provides highlights of new laws affecting taxes enacted during the 2009 regular and special legislative sessions.
- Motorcycle Noise in Maine - 2009-R-0393
You asked what Maine has done to reduce motorcycle noise.
- Public College and University Foundations - 2009-R-0399
You asked for information on private foundations affiliated with public colleges and universities. You were specifically interested in funding sources and accountability. You also asked for a legislative history of the state's public college and university foundations.
- Landscaper Licensing - 2009-R-0396
You asked for information on states that license landscapers, and the education, exam, and experience required to obtain such a license. You also requested samples of charges for licensing, regulations under which they are licensed, and any training required for the use of the equipment and products they use.
- State Elderly Programs - 2009-R-0397
You asked for an update of OLR report 2009-R-0268 which describes state programs for the elderly.
- Flu Vaccinations - 2009-R-0405
You asked several questions about flu vaccinations. Specifically you wanted to know: (1) the number of doses of and expenditures for H1N1 and seasonal flu vaccines, (2) if the Patriot Act permits the federal government to preempt state law when the President declares a national emergency, and (3) if anyone died from the swine flu vaccine administered in 1976.
- Economic Development Coordinators - 2009-R-0378
You asked how many towns have full- or part-time economic development coordinators or specialists.
- Issues in "Net Neutrality" Debate - 2009-R-0392
You asked for a brief discussion of the issues surrounding the “net neutrality” debate. The Congressional Research Service has published a background memo on net neutrality, which is available at www. fas. org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22444. pdf.
- Machine-Readable Health Insurance Identification Cards - 2009-R-0376
You asked for information about machine-readable health insurance identification (ID) cards (e. g. , cards with bar codes that embed patient information that health care providers can access). Specifically, you asked if other states require such bar codes on ID cards.
- Parenting Classes for Divorcing Couples - 2009-R-0407
You asked about parenting classes in Connecticut and surrounding states. 11/5/2009
- Legislative History of the Mashantucket Pequot Grant Formula - 2009-R-0387
You asked for a legislative history of the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan aid formula, including the original formula and subsequent legislative changes.
- Terminating Federal Campaign Committees - 2009-R-0389
You want to know the purposes for which members of Congress may use surplus campaign funds when they wind down and terminate their campaign committee.
- Body Armor and Connecticut Law - 2009-R-0401
You asked for a summary of Connecticut laws on body armor.
- Bleeding Disorder Legislation - 2009-R-0400 You asked if Connecticut has implemented a standard of care for people with bleeding disorders such as that found in a Pennsylvania legislative proposal.
- Acts Affecting Transportation
This report summarizes acts affecting transportation the legislature passed during the 2009 regular and special sessions. The report does not include acts that were vetoed unless the veto was overridden.
- Comparison of Child Protection - 2009-R-0362 You asked us to compare Oklahoma's Kelsey Smith-Briggs Child Protection Reform Act with Connecticut's child protection laws.
- High Efficiency Furnaces - 2009-R-0403
You asked whether newer, high efficiency furnaces operate at substantially higher temperatures than older furnaces, and if so whether they necessitate changes in the venting system in the homes in which they are installed.
- Funding for Energy Initiatives - 2009-R-0402
You asked that we respond to two questions posed by a constituent. The constituent heard a radio advertisement that he believes was sponsored by an entity called “EIA” that explained how homeowners could convert from oil to natural gas or other types of heating. You want to know (1) what is EIA and (2) whether it is using public funds to distribute this message.
11/4/2009
State v. Grant - SC18177 (Attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of §§ 53a-134 (a) (4) and 53a-49 (a); carrying dangerous weapon in violation of § 53-206; commission of class A, B or C felony with firearm, namely a BB gun, in violation of § 53-202k and sufficient evidence to support jury's finding of violation; mandatory five year term, "In support of his claim, the defendant contends that only a weapon that discharges a shot by gunpowder constitutes a firearm under General Statutes § 53a-3 (19)".)
Gender Identity or Expression: "Gender identity or expression" means a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.
Eight Connecticut Appellate Court opinions are scheduled to 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 today, the opinions will be available from the Appellate Court Archive. 11/2/2009
Dinuzzo v. Dan Perkins Chevrolet Geo, Inc. - SC17869 (Workers' compensation; "The sole issue raised by this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly reversed the decision of the compensation review board (board) upholding the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner for the third district (commissioner), who awarded the plaintiff, Evana DiNuzzo, survivor’s benefits under General Statutes § 31-306 (a). The Appellate Court concluded that there were insufficient subordinate facts in the record to support the commissioner’s finding that the death of the plaintiff’s husband, James DiNuzzo (decedent), was causally related to a compensable injury and, therefore, that the plaintiff was not entitled to survivor’s benefits.") 10/30/2009
|
Enforcing Money Judgments
Section 1: Installment Payment Orders
Section 2: Wage Executions
Section 3: Bank Executions
Section 4: Personal Property Executions
Section 5: Turnover Orders
Section 6: Judgment Liens
Section 7: Postjudgment Discovery
| Below are the juvenile law Appellate Court opinions issued in October 2009:
-
AC29911 - In re Christopher B. (“The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child, Christopher. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the department of children and families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify Christopher with her, (2) determined that she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation and (3) relied on evidence of her history prior to 2005 and disregarded current evidence in reaching its findings.”)
-
AC29890 - In re G.S. (“This appeal underscores the sad distinction between willingness and ability to parent a child. The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to G, her minor child. She contends that the court (1) erroneously found that the department of children and families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify her with G, (2) failed to make that finding pursuant to the clear and convincing evidence standard and (3) erroneously found that she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3).”)
-
AC30083 - In re Tremaine C. (“The respondent father appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor son, Tremaine. On appeal, the respondent claims that his constitutional due process rights to be present at trial and to confront witnesses were violated.”)
-
AC29565 - In re Jason S. (“The respondent, a minor child, appeals from the judgment of the trial court adjudicating him a delinquent for having committed the crimes of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly found that he had acted with the mental state necessary for the commission of sexual assault in the fourth degree.”)
-
AC30020 - In re Tremaine C. (“The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor son, Tremaine. The respondent claims that the court improperly found that (1) she had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation and (2) it would be in the best interest of the child to terminate her parental rights.”)
-
AC29796, AC29906 - Brownstein v. Spilke (Foreclosure; “In these consolidated appeals, the substitute plaintiff, J. Diamond Properties, LLC (Diamond), and the defendant Georgina Spilke appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying Diamond’s motion for a deficiency judgment as to the defendant Kenneth C. Spilke. In AC 29796, Diamond claims that the court improperly determined that it failed to prove the fair market value of the subject property as of the date title vested in Diamond following a judgment of foreclosure and that it would be inequitable to grant the deficiency judgment.”)
Below are the employment law Appellate Court opinions issued in October 2009:
-
AC29172 - Perez v. D & L Tractor Trailer School (Hostile Work Environment, Vexatious Litigation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Attorney’s Fees. “The plaintiff claims that the court (1) abused its discretion with respect to several evidentiary rulings, (2) improperly permitted the defendant’s counterclaim to go to the jury and (3) improperly calculated the attorney’s fees it awarded her. In his cross appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and (2) awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees.”)
-
AC29830 - State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001 (“The plaintiff, the state of Connecticut, appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying its application to vacate an arbitration award and granting the motion to confirm the award filed by the defendant, the Connecticut State Employees Association, SEIU Local 2001. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed or imperfectly execute his powers pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4). We are unable to evaluate the plaintiff’s claim because we conclude that the arbitrator’s award is ambiguous.”)
-
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.”)
AC29856 - 418 Meadow Street Associates, LLC v. One Solution Services, LLC ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied its motion to dismiss because (1) the commencement of the action was not properly authorized in accordance with the plaintiff’s operating agreement, (2) the plaintiff failed to prove that the authorizing vote of one of its members was properly excluded under General Statutes § 34-187 (b) and (3) the plaintiff’s mortgagee had exercised its right to collect rents due from the defendant to the plaintiff pursuant to a previously executed assignment of leases and rentals.")
AC29796, AC29906 - Brownstein v. Spilke ("In AC 29796, Diamond claims that the court improperly determined that it failed to prove the fair market value of the subject property as of the date title vested in Diamond following a judgment of foreclosure and that it would be inequitable to grant the deficiency judgment. In AC 29906, Georgina Spilke contends that the defendant’s claim regarding the deficiency judgment is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.")
AC29404 - State v. Adams ("The defendant claims that the court improperly failed to return property that was seized from him in criminal docket number CR-05-0284632-S, a case in which a nolle prosequi was entered pursuant to a plea agreement involving a total of six cases against the defendant.")
AC29588 - Davis v. Commissioner of Correction ("He claims that the court improperly dismissed his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.")
AC29192 - Samuels v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly held that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the petition because Public Acts 2006, No. 06-152, § 5, which modified General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 52-466, unambiguously expanded the jurisdiction of the habeas court and eliminated the ‘‘in custody’’ requirement from subsection (a) (2) for those petitioners who claim a deprivation of liberty and who presently are confined in a correctional facility as a result of being convicted of a crime.")
AC30458 - Parker v. Commissioner of Correction ("In the case before us, the petitioner, Kaniyn Parker, appeals following the habeas court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction over the petition.")
AC29544 - Raynor v. Commissioner of Correction - ("The petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his trial counsel was not ineffective in (1) failing properly to prepare for and to investigate prior to trial and (2) failing to recall a certain witness in the criminal trial.") |
|
|
|