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.

Criminal Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3066

SC19588 - State v. Parnoff ("The defendant, Laurence V. Parnoff, uttered threatening words to two water company employees who had entered his property pursuant to an easement to service a fire hydrant—telling them, essentially, that if they did not leave his property, he would retrieve a gun and shoot them. As a result of his statement, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182 (a) (1), which criminalizes intentionally or recklessly causing inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by way of 'violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior . . . .' The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of conviction, arguing that, under principles stemming from the first amendment to the United States constitution, there was insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict as to the disorderly conduct charge. State v. Parnoff, 160 Conn. App. 270, 274, 125 A.3d 573 (2015). Because the behavior giving rise to his conviction was pure speech and not physical violence, the first amendment forbids the imposition of criminal sanctions unless that speech amounts to so-called 'fighting words'—words that would cause a reasonable addressee to respond with imminent violence under the circumstances. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Baccala, 326 Conn. 232, 234–35, 251, 163 A.3d 1, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 510, 199 L. Ed. 2d 408 (2017); see also U.S. Const., amend. I. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment after concluding that the defendant's statement was not fighting words because, although inappropriate, the defendant's words were not likely to provoke an immediate and violent reaction from the water company employees. State v. Parnoff, supra, 281. We agree with the Appellate Court and affirm its judgment.")

AC40283 - State v. Baldwin ("The defendant, Lee Baldwin, appeals challenging the denial of his motion to modify the terms and conditions of his probation filed pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-30 (c). Specifically, he claims that (1) the court's denial violated his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a future proceeding and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to modify and not allowing the defendant to delay his sex offender treatment until his pending habeas action had concluded. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39126 - State v. Gerald A. ("The defendant, Gerald A., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) and three counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to convict him of one count of sexual assault in the first degree; (2) the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his prior misconduct; (3) the trial court improperly granted the state's motion for joinder of two separate cases against him; and (4) the trial court improperly denied his motion to make an opening statement to the jury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40453 - State v. Morris ("The plaintiff in error, Dad's Bail Bonds, LLC, brings this writ of error challenging the judgment of the trial court denying its motion for release from surety obligations arising out of a $45,000 bond it had posted on behalf of the defendant in the underlying criminal case, Stanley Morris. After Morris failed to appear in court as required, the court ordered the bond forfeited. The plaintiff in error claims that the trial court violated its right to due process in numerous ways during the adjudication of its motion for release and that, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-65c, it was entitled to release from its surety obligation.")

Workers' Compensation Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3064

SC20005 - Williams v. New Haven ("In the present case, we are asked to determine whether our holding in Genovese, in which the plaintiff brought an action in the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 31-290a, applies equally when a plaintiff has opted to bring his claim pursuant to § 31-290a before the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission). Specifically, we must determine whether the Compensation Review Board (review board) correctly determined that § 31-51bb permitted the plaintiff, Simon Williams, to file a claim with the commission alleging that the named defendant, the city of New Haven,1 had violated § 31-290a by wrongfully terminating his employment in retaliation for bringing a workers’ compensation claim, despite the fact that a related issue previously had been decided by the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration (state board) in an arbitration proceeding brought pursuant to the plaintiff’s collective bargaining agreement. We conclude that the review board correctly determined that, under § 31-51bb, the plaintiff’s claim brought before the commission pursuant to § 31-290a was not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Accordingly, we affirm the review board’s decision.")

AC39673 - Mikucka v. St. Lucian's Residence, Inc. (“The plaintiff claims that (1) the commissioner, by not allowing her to present evidence to prove that she did not have a work capacity, violated her right to due process, and (2) the commissioner erred in determining that she was not totally disabled. We affirm the decision of the board and dismiss the appeal as to the second claim.”)

Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3065

AC39955 - HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Hallums ("The defendant, Mark A. Hallums, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee for the Registered Holders of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc.On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly:(1) rendered a judgment when the plaintiff lacked standing in the case; (2) rendered a judgment in the absence of jurisdiction because there was no state law right to pursue a foreclosure action in light of the defendant's discharge of the debt in bankruptcy; and (3) refused to apply the best evidence rule and the clean hands doctrine.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39880 - Jenzack Partners, LLC v. Stoneridge Associates, LLC ("The defendant Jennifer Tine appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Jenzack Partners, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly: (1) held that Sovereign Bank had assigned the defendant's guarantee to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had standing to foreclose on the mortgage; (2) determined that the plaintiff had established the amount of debt due on the subject note; and (3) granted attorney's fees and costs to the plaintiff. We agree with the defendant's second claim and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court only as to Jennifer Tine.")

Familiy Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3067

AC39544 - Magsig v. Magsig ("The plaintiff, Kim Magsig, appeals from the denial of her postdissolution motion for contempt. On appeal, she claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the defendant, Michael Magsig, had not violated an indemnification obligation contained in the parties’ separation agreement. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


1 2 3 4 5 ... Next Last