Source: https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Default.aspx?ArchMY=201905
Timestamp: 2020-01-27 19:22:21
Document Index: 795963091

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 12', '§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 53', '§ 14']

May 31 2019 12:03PM by Penn, Michele
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3512
AC41185 - Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Kepple ("The defendants, Christine Kepple and Mark Kepple, appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Flagstar Bank, FSB. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action as a result of the plaintiff's alleged lack of standing. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
May 31 2019 11:58AM by Townsend, Karen
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3513
AC40399 - Vitti v. Milford (“The principal issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff’s claim for heart and hypertension benefits under General Statutes § 7-433c is governed by the version of the statute in effect on the date of the plaintiff’s hire or the date of his injury… On appeal, the defendant claims that the board erred, as a matter of law, by (1) applying to the plaintiff’s claim the version of § 7-433c that was in effect on the date of the plaintiff’s injury in 2010 (2010 version), rather than the version of § 7-433c that was in effect on the date of the plaintiff’s hire in 1993 (1993 version), and (2) affirming the commissioner’s finding that the plaintiff’s giant cell myocarditis qualifies as heart disease under § 7-433c. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board.”)
Medical Malpractice Supreme Court Opinions
May 31 2019 11:45AM by Roy, Christopher
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3507
SC20052 - Ashmore v. Hartford Hospital ("In this wrongful death action alleging medical malpractice, the named defendant, Hartford Hospital, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which denied a motion for remittitur after a jury awarded $1.2 million in noneconomic damages to the named plaintiff, Marjorie Ashmore, as the administratrix of the estate of the decedent, her late husband William Ashmore, and $4.5 million to the plaintiff for her own loss of spousal consortium. The defendant contends that, in the absence of exceptional or unusual circumstances that are not applicable in this case, a loss of consortium award ordinarily should not substantially exceed the corresponding wrongful death award to the directly injured spouse. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
SC20052 Concurrence - Ashmore v. Hartford Hospital
May 31 2019 11:40AM by Roy, Christopher
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3509
May 31 2019 11:38AM by Roy, Christopher
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3508
AC41429 - Hilario Truck Center, LLC v. Kohn ("The plaintiff, Hilario Truck Center, LLC, appeals from the judgment of dismissal of the third count of its operative complaint following the granting of the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). The plaintiff argues that the court erred when it concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a claim as a third-party beneficiary against Allstate pursuant to an automobile insurance policy issued to the defendant Kevin E. Kohn. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
May 31 2019 11:38AM by Zigadto, Janet
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3511
AC41443 - O'Brien-Kelley, Ltd. V. Goshen (Tax warrant; "In this action arising from an alias tax warrant issued by the town of Goshen for delinquent municipal real estate taxes, the plaintiff, O'Brien-Kelley, Ltd., appeals from the summary judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant Arthur R. Quinn III, a state marshal, which concluded that the defendant was entitled, under General Statutes § 12-162 (c), to be paid a 15 percent statutory fee for executing the subject tax warrant. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in holding that the defendant was entitled to be paid the statutory fee because the defendant had not executed on the tax warrant or collected the delinquent taxes, but merely mailed notice of the tax warrant to the plaintiff, prompting the plaintiff to pay the delinquent tax and interest to the town directly before the warrant was served. We disagree, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
May 31 2019 11:32AM by Roy, Christopher
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3510
AC40650 - State v. Dojnia ("The defendant, Jodi M. Dojnia, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of assault of a disabled person in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60b (a) (1). The defendant claims that (1) § 53a-60b (a) (1) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct, (2) the evidence did not support a finding that the victim was physically disabled, and (3) prosecutorial impropriety during closing argument deprived her of a fair trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC39379, AC40796 - State v. Marcus H. ("The defendant, Marcus H., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree with a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60d, two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1), two counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-63, reckless driving in violation of General Statutes § 14-222, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1), operating a motor vehicle with an elevated blood alcohol content in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (2), interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a, and increasing speed in an attempt to escape or elude a police officer in violation of General Statutes § 14-223 (b).The defendant claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) violated his constitutional right to counsel by denying his application for the appointment of a public defender and (2) violated his constitutional right to due process when it did not order, sua sponte, a judicial marshal to remove his leg shackles during the trial. We are not persuaded by the defendant's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction.")
Law Library Hours Update - May 24th - May 31st
May 28 2019 12:58PM by Dowd, Jeffrey
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3501
Middletown Law Library closes at 4:00 p.m.
Torrington Law Library closes 3:30 p.m.
Danbury Law Library closes 2:00 p.m.
Waterbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m.
Danbury Law Library opens at 10:00 a.m. and closes at 3:30 p.m.
Connecticut Law Journal - May 28, 2019
May 28 2019 11:48AM by Roy, Christopher
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3505
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 48, for May 28, 2019 is now available.
Volume 331: Connecticut Reports (Pages 745 - 776)
Volume 331: Orders (Pages 927 - 929)
Volume 190: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 245 - 295)
Volume 190: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
Volume 190: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
May 23 2019 12:27PM by Roy, Christopher
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3504
AC41028 - Rosenthal Law Firm, LLC v. Cohen ("This action between the plaintiff, Rosenthal Law Firm, LLC, and its former client, the defendant, James Cohen, arises out of a fee dispute that had been resolved in the plaintiff's favor during a prior arbitration proceeding. Following the confirmation of the arbitration award, the plaintiff commenced the present action seeking attorney's fees, pursuant to a contract between it and the defendant, for its prosecution of the fee dispute. After a trial to the court, the trial court rendered judgment in the defendant's favor, from which the plaintiff now appeals. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court erred in concluding that it was not entitled to attorney's fees because it had represented itself, through its sole member, in the arbitration and award confirmation proceedings. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
May 23 2019 12:25PM by Zigadto, Janet
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3502
AC41010 - Reiner v. Reiner (Breach of fiduciary duty; "The present appeal stems from a dispute over the interpretation of a settlement agreement between, among others, the plaintiff Michael D. Reiner and the defendant Jeffrey A. Reiner. The defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a hearing pursuant to Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804, 811–12, 626 A.2d 288 (2010) (Audubon), denying his motion to enforce the agreement. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the settlement agreement is clear and unambiguous, as construed by the plaintiff. We conclude that the contested sections of the agreement are not clear and unambiguous and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the defendant's motion to enforce the agreement on the alternative ground that a settlement agreement that is not clear and unambiguous cannot be enforced through an Audubon hearing.")
May 23 2019 12:16PM by Roy, Christopher
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3503
AC41450 - Viking Construction, Inc. v. 777 Residential, LLC ("The cross claim defendant, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual), appeals from the summary judgment rendered against it in favor of the cross claim plaintiffs, 777 Main Street, LLC (777 Main) and 777 Residential, LLC (777 Residential). On appeal, Liberty Mutual argues that the trial court erred in granting the 777 entities' motion for summary judgment on their cross claim and in denying Liberty Mutual's motion for summary judgment, on the basis of its interpretation of the insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual to the 777 entities. Specifically, Liberty Mutual argues that (1) the defects, errors, and omissions exclusion in the insurance policy bars coverage, and (2) the resulting loss clause in the policy does not reinstate coverage. We agree with Liberty Mutual and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
Law Library Hours Update May 15th - May 28th
May 22 2019 10:40AM by Dowd, Jeffrey
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3491
Bridgeport Law Library closes 1:15 p.m.
New Britain Law Library closes 1:45 p.m.
Putnam Law Library closes 2:00 p.m.
Rockville Law Library closes at noon.
Waterbury Law Library closes from 1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
New London Law Library opens 9:30 a.m.
Waterbury Law Library opens 11:00 a.m.
All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed in observance of Memorial Day.
May 21 2019 11:59AM by Zigadto, Janet
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3499
SC20019 - Tuohy v. Groton (Property tax appeal; "In this appeal, we consider whether a municipality's assessor may apply a uniform adjustment factor to a neighborhood's appraised property values during the mass appraisal process for the revaluation of real property pursuant to General Statutes 12-62 (b), as a direct equalization measure in order to ensure that neighborhood is not undertaxed relative to others in the municipality. The plaintiffs, John P. Tuohy and numerous other owners of real property located in the Groton Long Point neighborhood, brought this class action tax appeal pursuant to General Statutes 12-119 against the defendants, the town of Groton (town) and Mary Gardner, its assessor, challenging the assessed value of their properties following the revaluation conducted by the town for its October 1, 2011 grand list (2011 revaluation). The plaintiffs now appeal from the judgment in favor of the defendants, rendered after a trial to the court, upholding the legality of those assessments. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court incorrectly determined that their assessments were not manifestly excessive because the defendants violated 12-62 and numerous provisions of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (regulations) promulgated by the state Office of Policy and Management (OPM); see Regs., Conn. State Agencies 12-62i-1 et seq.; when they applied a flat, undifferentiated adjustment factor that increased the assessed value of all properties in Groton Long Point by 35 percent without individualized consideration of the unique characteristics of each property. We conclude that the defendants properly applied an adjustment factor as a direct equalization measure in connection with an assessment to sales ratio study conducted pursuant to various standards promulgated by the International Association of Assessing Officers (international association) in order to ensure that Groton Long Point bore its fair share of the town's municipal tax burden relative to the town's other neighborhoods. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Connecticut Law Journal - May 21, 2019
May 21 2019 11:48AM by Roy, Christopher
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3500
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 47, for May 21, 2019 is now available.
Volume 188 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 337 - 338
Volume 331: Connecticut Reports (Pages 701 - 744)
Volume 331: Orders (Pages 924 - 927)
Volume 190: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 63 - 245)
Practice Book Amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure
May 17 2019 11:55AM by Roy, Christopher
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3495
AC40662 - Patrowicz v. Peloquin ("In this breach of contract action, the self-represented defendant, Barry Peloquin, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Richard M. Patrowicz and Deborah Patrowicz. On appeal, the defendant challenges the court's (1) denial of his request for a continuance following the close of the plaintiffs' case-in-chief and (2) determinations with respect to his statute of frauds defense. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC40870 - Stamford Hospital v. Schwartz ("This appeal arises from the defendant parents' refusal to pay for medical care and treatment rendered to their minor child by the plaintiff hospital and the transparently disingenuous machinations they employed in an effort to avoid liability for the debt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
May 17 2019 11:45AM by Roy, Christopher
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3496
AC41170 - Ferrari v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. (Product liability; "The plaintiff, Raymond C. Ferrari, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Johnson & Johnson, Inc., and Synthes, Inc. The plaintiff claims that the court erred by holding that (1) he cannot prove that the defendants' product was defective, or that the product's alleged defect caused the plaintiff's injury, without the use of expert testimony, and (2) the learned intermediary doctrine barred the plaintiff's failure to warn claim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC40216 - Fisk v. Redding (Public nuisance; "The plaintiff, Gregg Fisk, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered on a jury verdict in favor of the defendant town of Redding. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) denying his motion to set aside the verdict and (2) excluding evidence of subsequent remedial measures. We agree with the plaintiff's first claim but disagree with the second.")
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3494
May 17 2019 11:40AM by Zigadto, Janet
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3497
AC40664 - U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Giblen ("In this foreclosure action, the defendant mortgagors, Gary M. Giblen, also known as Gary Giblen, and Anna-Marie L. Giblen, also known as Anna-Marie Giblen, appeal from the judgment of the trial court approving the sale of their mortgaged property, on the motion of the committee of sale (committee), following the court's rendering of a judgment of foreclosure by sale in favor of the plaintiff mortgagee, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust. On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the trial court's approval of the sale of the subject property was void ab initio because it exceeded the scope of the Bankruptcy Court's order annulling the automatic stay that was triggered by the defendants' filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in approving the sale of the subject property because there were 'irregularities with the motion to approve the foreclosure sale' that were 'injurious' to them. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC41113 - Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. v. Fitzpatrick ("The defendants, James R. Fitzpatrick and Marsha A. Fitzpatrick, appeal from the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) denied their motion to dismiss and rendered judgment of foreclosure by sale because the plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the note and mortgage, namely, compliance with the notice requirements, and (2) concluded that the defendants had not proved their special defense of laches. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
May 17 2019 11:36AM by Zigadto, Janet
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3498
SC20054 - Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding (Property tax appeal, writ of error; "In this certified appeal, we are asked to determine whether there exists either an absolute or qualified testimonial privilege for an unretained expert who previously has rendered an opinion relevant to the issues in a pending case. The defendant in error, the town of Redding (town), appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which granted the writ of error filed by the plaintiff in error, David R. Salinas. In granting the writ, the Appellate Court vacated the trial court's order denying his motion for a protective order that sought to prohibit the town from taking his deposition and ordered the trial court to determine whether Salinas' testimony was privileged under the new, qualified unretained expert privilege that the Appellate Court announced. To reach this issue, however, this court must overcome two jurisdictional hurdles: (1) whether this court has jurisdiction to grant certification to appeal from the Appellate Court's determination of a writ of error, and (2) whether the trial court's ruling constituted an appealable final judgment. Although we determine that we have jurisdiction to grant certification, we nevertheless determine that there was no appealable final judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and direct that court on remand to dismiss the writ of error for lack of a final judgment.")