SC19831 - Maturo v. State Employees Retirement Commission (Administrative appeal; "The plaintiff, Joseph Maturo, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court upholding the declaratory ruling of the defendant, the State Employees Retirement Commission, and dismissing his administrative appeal. The plaintiff retired in 1991 from his position as a firefighter with the town of East Haven and was awarded a disability pension through his membership in the municipal employees retirement system (retirement system). He subsequently was elected to the position of mayor of East Haven in 1997, and served in that capacity until 2007, when he lost his reelection bid. During that time, the commission and the retirement services division of the Office of the State Comptroller (collectively, the agencies), which jointly administer the retirement system, interpreted the Municipal Employees' Retirement Act (act), General Statutes § 7-425 et seq., to provide that a retired member, who is reemployed by a municipality that participates in the retirement system, may continue to receive a retirement pension if he or she is reemployed in a position, such as the mayor of East Haven, that the municipality has not designated for participation in the system (nonparticipating position). In 2009, however, the agencies concluded that they had misconstrued the act in this regard and that a retiree cannot continue to collect a pension while reemployed in any full-time position with a participating municipality. Accordingly, when the plaintiff was again elected mayor in 2011, the retirement services division suspended his pension, a decision that both the commission and the trial court, Schuman, J., subsequently affirmed. On appeal, the plaintiff's primary contention is that the agencies improperly construed the reemployment and disability pension provisions of the act, and that he is not barred from receiving a disability pension while serving as the mayor of East Haven. The plaintiff also challenges the trial court's conclusions that he did not rely to his detriment on the agencies' previous interpretation of the act and that the commission did not violate his rights to equal protection and due process of law. Finding no error, we affirm.")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut General Assembly has posted a list of new legislation that is effective on July 1, 2017. Each entry includes links to the full text of the Public Act, the plain english summary from the Office of Legislative Research, and the bill status page.

In addition, you can view current legislation effective from passage. The CGA also provides an archive of legislation by effective date going back to October 2007.

• Posted in:
• New Legislation

The Judicial Branch has announced that it is now publishing a syllabus (headnote) at the top of each Supreme and Appellate Court opinion:

The Judicial Branch is now posting online headnotes for both Supreme and Appellate Court opinions. These headnotes, which accompany individual Supreme and Appellate Court decisions, include a short summary of the ruling and the procedural history of a case. The Reporter of Judicial Decisions prepares the headnotes, which are not part of the opinion. As such, the opinion alone should be relied upon for the reasoning behind the decision [Emphasis added].

Subscribe to a case law category (or categories) of your choice through our Email Digest or RSS delivery services to receive the latest cases from the Supreme or Appellate Courts delivered directly to your inbox.

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Business Law,
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Contract Law,
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Employment Law,
• Environmental Law,
• Family Law,
• Foreclosure Law,
• Freedom of Information Law,
• FYI,
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Insurance Law,
• Juvenile Law,
• Land Use Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Legal Malpractice & Attorney Discipline Law,
• Legal Research,
• Medical Malpractice Law,
• Probate Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Self-Help,
• Tort Law,
• Workers' Compensation Law

AC38206 - State v. Purcell (Risk of injury to child; "The defendant, Robert John Purcell, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, of conviction of one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1) and of two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). The jury found the defendant not guilty of one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (1), two counts of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1), and one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant raises various claims pertaining to testimony by the victim's mother that the victim had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD testimony) and the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements that he made to the police during a custodial interrogation. With respect to the PTSD testimony, the defendant claims that allowing the victim's mother to testimony about his medical conditions constituted a harmful evidentiary error, which was based on the PTSD testimony. With respect to his motion to suppress, the defendant claims that the interrogating detectives violated Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S. Ct. 1880, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378 (1981), by continuing to question him after he clearly and unambiguously invoked his right to counsel. Alternatively, the defendant argues that, even if his invocations were ambiguous or equivocal, and therefore ineffective under Edwards, article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution required the interrogating detectives to clarify his statements before questioning him further. We reject the defendant's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

SC19671 - Barton v. Norwalk (Inverse condemnation; "In this certified appeal, the defendant, the city of Norwalk, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court awarding the plaintiff Robert Barton $899,480 in damages plus prejudgment interest for his claim that the defendant inversely condemned a parcel of real property located at 70 South Main Street in Norwalk (70 South Main) by taking, through the power of eminent domain, the plaintiff's parking lot located across the street at 65 South Main Street (65 South Main). See Barton v. Norwalk, 163 Conn. App. 190, 193–94, 135 A.3d 711 (2016). The defendant raises two claims in the present appeal. First, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly affirmed the judgment of the trial court that the plaintiff had proven inverse condemnation because 70 South Main retains significant value and generates significant income. Second, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the plaintiff's inverse condemnation claim was not barred by judicial estoppel. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions