The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

Law Library Research Guides: Civil Procedure

   by Booth, George

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=378

The Judicial Branch law librarians author and update a number of research guides on various legal topics (family law, juvenile law, property law) in addition to the following selections on civil procedure and motion practice:

You can find more civil matters research guides along with our complete collection on our Research Guides webpage.


Insurance Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=377

SC19585 - Gold v. Rowland ("This certified class action, which arises from a dispute over the proceeds of the 2001 demutualization of the defendant Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. (Anthem Insurance), comes before this court for the second time. The plaintiffs are a class of state employees and retirees who, at the time of the demutualization, were enrolled in an Anthem Insurance group health care insurance plan. They contend that their participation in that plan entitled them to membership in Anthem Insurance and a share of the demutualization proceeds, and that Anthem Insurance and the other insurance company defendants; see part I E of this opinion; breached their contractual obligations by not paying the plaintiffs for their membership interests and instead distributing their share of the proceeds to the defendant state of Connecticut. The first time we considered this case, we concluded that all of the plaintiffs’ claims against the named defendant, John Rowland, the former governor of Connecticut, and the state were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity or otherwise should have been dismissed. See Gold v. Rowland, 296 Conn. 186, 205, 209–11, 994 A.2d 106 (2010). Following our decision and a subsequent trial to the court of the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims against the remaining defendants, the trial court, Bright, J., rendered judgment for those defendants. On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the relevant contract provisions were ambiguous and improperly consulted extrinsic evidence to determine their meaning. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.")


Law Library Hours Update: March 30th - April 7th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=376

Thursday, March 30th

  • Rockville Law Library will be closed.
  • Waterbury Law Library will be open from 9:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Friday, March 31st

  • New London Law Library will be open from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
  • Rockville Law Library will be closed.
  • Waterbury Law Library will be open from 9:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

See our regularly scheduled hours.


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=375

SC19735 - State v. Edwards (Home invasion; robbery first degree; assault of elderly person third degree; larceny second degree; "The defendant, Eugene Edwards, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court convicting him of home invasion in violation of General Statutes § 53a-100aa (a) (2), robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (2), larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-123 (a) (3), and assault of an elderly person in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61a (a) (1) arising out of an incident in Wethersfield. On appeal to this court, the defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress certain statements that he had made to police; (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed a police officer to present nonexpert testimony regarding cell phone records and maps; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We agree with the defendant that the trial court improperly allowed the police officer to present certain testimony regarding the cell phone records and maps, but find such error was harmless. We disagree with the defendant's other claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")