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.

Connecticut Law Journal - October 30, 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3239

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXX, No. 18, for October 30, 2018 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 330: Connecticut Reports (Pages 372 - 400)
  • Volume 330: Orders (Pages 927 - 932)
  • Volume 330: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 185: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 656 - 752)
  • Volume 185: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 906 - 907)
  • Volume 185: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3238

AC40368 - Smith v. BL Cos. ("The plaintiff, Brandon Smith, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, BL Companies, Inc. (company), and James Fielding, on the ground of res judicata. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred as a matter of law by concluding that a prior judgment on a nuisance claim precluded the plaintiff from bringing a subsequent negligence claim that was predicated on the same nucleus of fact but not pleaded in the previous action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40369 - Fisk v. BL Cos. ("The plaintiff, Gregg Fisk, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, BL Companies, Inc. (company), and James Fielding, on the ground of res judicata. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred as a matter of law by concluding that a prior judgment on a nuisance claim precluded the plaintiff from bringing a subsequent negligence claim that was predicated on the same nucleus of fact but not pleaded in the previous action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3237

AC40683 - Li v. Yaggi ("The self-represented plaintiffs, Winston Y. Li and Liping Wang, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor of the defendant, Valerie M. Yaggi, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Henry Yaggi, on the plaintiffs' two count complaint alleging breach of the parties' purchase and sale agreement and breach of contract. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court (1) erroneously found that the plaintiffs failed to diligently pursue a written mortgage commitment, (2) erroneously found that the plaintiffs failed to give notice of their inability to obtain financing for the real estate purchase by the agreed upon commitment date, and (3) erred in awarding the defendant attorney's fees. The defendant raises the doctrine of equitable estoppel as an alternative ground for affirmance of the court's decision. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3236

AC39651 - Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erroneously denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Specifically, the petitioner claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to dismiss a home invasion charge, to which he pleaded guilty pursuant to the Alford doctrine. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://vvv.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3234

AC40008, AC40047 - Kirwan v. Kirwan ("In these consolidated appeals arising out of a marital dissolution action, we must determine, inter alia, whether an arbitrator's factual finding regarding the gross income of a party, which was made in the course of determining alimony and the equitable distribution of marital assets, is binding on the court with respect to its subsequent adjudication of child support, an issue that was statutorily and contractually excluded from the arbitration. We conclude that it was proper for the trial court to make its own independent findings regarding gross income, unfettered by the previous findings of the arbitrator.")