Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A fire at a call center in Davao City, Philippines, resulted in the deaths of twenty-nine individuals who were employees of a Philippine company providing services for a Connecticut-based company. The estates of the deceased and other plaintiffs, most of whom were Philippine citizens or residents, brought a wrongful death and loss of consortium action in Connecticut against the Connecticut company and two of its officers, who were also involved with the Philippine employer.The Superior Court, Complex Litigation Docket, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, finding the Philippines to be an adequate alternative forum. The court considered conflicting affidavits from expert witnesses regarding whether Philippine courts would accept the case, given concerns about the statute of limitations. The dismissal was conditioned on allowing the plaintiffs to reinstate the Connecticut action if the Philippine courts declined jurisdiction. The Appellate Court affirmed this decision, concluding that the trial court applied the proper legal standard and meaningfully assessed the adequacy of the Philippine forum.On further appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment. It held that the trial court correctly applied the legal standard from Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc., and undertook a meaningful assessment of the adequacy of the Philippines as an alternative forum. The Supreme Court found that the trial court did not rely solely on the defendants’ consent to jurisdiction but weighed competing affidavits and evidence regarding Philippine law and procedure. The conditional nature of the dismissal, allowing reinstatement in Connecticut if the Philippine courts declined jurisdiction, was also deemed appropriate. Thus, the disposition by the Connecticut Supreme Court was to affirm the Appellate Court’s decision. View "DeCicco v. Dynata, LLC" on Justia Law

A business in Connecticut was assessed personal property taxes from 2008 to 2016. The defendant, who had moved to California years earlier and claimed to have left the business by 2007, was never notified of these tax assessments at her California address, despite having provided it to the tax collector in 2011 and 2016. Over the years, the city’s tax collector took funds from the defendant’s bank accounts multiple times via bank executions to satisfy the tax debt, without ever sending her a tax bill or notice at her actual residence.In 2021, the tax collector initiated another bank execution against the defendant. The defendant challenged this action, arguing she had not received due process or required statutory notice. The Superior Court for the judicial district of Litchfield held an evidentiary hearing and agreed with the defendant, finding the tax collector failed to provide required notice under General Statutes § 12-155 (a) and that the lack of notice deprived her of the opportunity to challenge the tax assessment. The court granted the defendant’s exemption motion, rendering the execution “of no effect.” The tax collector initially appealed but then withdrew the appeal. After sending a written demand to the defendant’s California address, the tax collector initiated a new bank execution, again without providing a new tax bill or an opportunity to challenge it.The trial court found the new action was a collateral attack on the earlier judgment and barred by collateral estoppel. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding the issue of notice and opportunity to challenge had been actually litigated and necessarily determined in the 2021 action.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment. It held that, under Connecticut law, collateral estoppel applies to all independent, alternative grounds actually litigated and determined in a prior judgment, making them preclusive in subsequent actions. Thus, the tax collector was barred from relitigating the notice and due process issues already decided. The Court declined to recognize a public policy exception for municipal tax collection cases. View "Torrington Tax Collector, LLC v. Riley" on Justia Law

A candidate for the South Windsor town council in the November 2025 municipal election challenged the town clerk’s decision regarding the application of revisions to the town charter. During the same election in which council members were chosen, voters also approved, by referendum, changes to the charter that altered the party composition rules for the council, reducing the maximum number of members who could be from the same political party from six to five. The town clerk determined that these new limits applied immediately to the 2025 election, even though meeting minutes from the Charter Revision Commission indicated the changes would not take effect until 2027. As a result, the clerk declared a Republican candidate, rather than the plaintiff (a Democrat who otherwise would have won under the prior rules), as the winner of the final council seat.A lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for the judicial district of Hartford under statutes providing expedited review for those aggrieved by rulings of election officials in municipal elections. The plaintiff argued that the clerk’s decision to apply the new charter revisions to the 2025 election was erroneous. The trial court dismissed the action, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the clerk’s decision was not a “ruling of an election official” within the meaning of the relevant statutes.On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court addressed whether the clerk’s determination constituted a “ruling of an election official” for the purposes of the statutes governing election disputes. The court held that the town clerk’s decision to apply the newly adopted charter provisions to the current election was indeed a ruling of an election official. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision clarified that applying or interpreting laws affecting the determination of election outcomes falls within the statutory jurisdiction for expedited election challenges. View "Amadasun v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

A municipal tax collector initiated a bank execution action against an individual to collect unpaid personal property taxes owed by a business with which the individual was previously associated. The individual had moved to California years earlier and claimed that she never received notice of the tax debt or an opportunity to contest it, despite providing her new address to the tax collector. Previous bank executions had been initiated, but the individual continued to assert lack of notice. In the 2021 action, the trial court found that the tax collector failed to comply with statutory notice requirements and that the individual had not been afforded due process, leading the court to grant her exemption from the execution.Following the 2021 judgment, the tax collector withdrew its appeal and attempted a new bank execution after sending written demand to the individual's California address, but did not provide a new tax bill or opportunity to challenge it. The individual again moved for exemption. The Superior Court concluded that the new execution was a collateral attack on the previous judgment and was barred by doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The Appellate Court affirmed, finding that the issue of notice and opportunity to challenge the tax debt had been actually litigated and necessarily determined in the prior action.Upon review, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that collateral estoppel barred the municipal tax collector from relitigating whether it could execute on the individual's funds without first providing adequate notice and an opportunity to challenge the underlying tax debt. The Court determined that both independent, alternative grounds supporting the earlier judgment were entitled to preclusive effect and declined to create a public policy exception for municipal tax collection actions. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court. View "Torrington Tax Collector, LLC v. Riley" on Justia Law

This case arose from a fire at a call center in Davao City, Philippines, in which twenty-nine people died. The plaintiffs, representing the estates of the deceased and other individuals, filed suit in Connecticut against a Connecticut company and two of its officers, alleging wrongful death and related claims. The decedents were employees of a Philippine company providing services for the defendant Connecticut company. The defendants argued that the Philippines was the proper forum for the dispute, stipulating that they would submit to Philippine jurisdiction, accept service, and waive certain defenses, including the statute of limitations, for a period of time.The Superior Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, finding that the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum. The trial court’s dismissal was conditional: if the Philippine courts declined jurisdiction, the plaintiffs could refile in Connecticut. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the Philippine courts would sua sponte dismiss the case as time-barred, and thus the Philippines was not an adequate alternative forum. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that the trial court applied the correct legal standard and properly considered the adequacy of the alternative forum.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case, focusing on whether the trial court had properly assessed the adequacy of the Philippine forum. The court held that the trial court had applied the correct standard from Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc., meaningfully evaluating competing expert affidavits on Philippine law and the effect of the defendants’ stipulations. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not rely solely on the defendants’ consent, but conducted the required assessment. The judgment of the Appellate Court was affirmed, upholding dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, contingent on the defendants’ stipulation and the plaintiffs’ ability to reinstate the action if necessary. View "DeCicco v. Dynata, LLC" on Justia Law

A woman was injured when a heat lamp manufactured by a company made contact with her foot during an acupuncture session performed by a physician. She initially sued the physician and his employer for medical malpractice. The physician then filed a third-party complaint against the manufacturer, alleging product liability. The injured woman subsequently filed a direct product liability claim against the manufacturer. The manufacturer raised special defenses, asserting that both the woman and the physician bore comparative responsibility for her injuries and that, if found liable, it would be entitled to contribution from the physician. Before trial concluded, the physician withdrew his third-party complaint. The jury found the manufacturer 80 percent responsible and the physician 20 percent responsible for the woman’s damages.After judgment was rendered, the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the judgment as to the medical malpractice claim against the physician for lack of personal jurisdiction but affirmed the product liability judgment, including the jury’s allocation of comparative responsibility. The Connecticut Supreme Court denied the manufacturer’s petition for certification to appeal, and the woman withdrew her appeals after receiving payment in satisfaction of the judgment.The manufacturer and its insurer then filed a contribution action against the physician, seeking to recover 20 percent of the amount paid to the injured woman. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer and its insurer. On appeal, the physician argued that he was not a party subject to the comparative responsibility provisions of the Connecticut Product Liability Act and that the contribution action was untimely.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that all defendants in an action involving a product liability claim, regardless of whether they are product sellers, are subject to comparative responsibility under the statute. The Court also held that a contribution action is timely if brought within one year after all appellate proceedings in the underlying action are final. The judgment in favor of the manufacturer and its insurer was affirmed. View "Health Body World Supply, Inc. v. Wang" on Justia Law

A four-year-old child drowned after wandering unattended from the home where she had been placed under temporary custody by order of the Probate Court. The child’s parents had previously lost guardianship, and the court had vested temporary custody in maternal relatives. To determine whether to grant a full transfer of guardianship, the Probate Court ordered the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to investigate the home and report its findings. DCF submitted its report, recommending the placement, but before the court could hold a hearing on permanent guardianship, the child died. The child’s estate, through her father as administrator, alleged that DCF’s negligence in investigating the placement and in making recommendations to the Probate Court was a proximate cause of the child’s death, and also claimed DCF failed to fulfill independent duties to protect the child from abuse and neglect.After the estate received permission from the Claims Commissioner to sue the state, DCF moved to dismiss the action in the Superior Court, arguing that it was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for actions integral to the judicial process, such as conducting court-ordered investigations and making recommendations. The Superior Court agreed, holding that DCF was protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity when acting as an arm of the Probate Court, and that the Claims Commissioner could not waive this immunity. The court dismissed the action, finding the complaint’s allegations insufficient to overcome DCF’s immunity.On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the Claims Commissioner’s waiver of sovereign immunity under the relevant statute does not preclude the state from asserting absolute quasi-judicial immunity. However, the Court reversed in part, concluding that some of the estate’s allegations may fall outside the scope of quasi-judicial immunity, particularly those involving DCF’s independent statutory duties. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine which claims, if any, are not barred by quasi-judicial immunity. View "Jamie G. v. Dept. of Children & Families" on Justia Law

The defendant was previously convicted of murder and criminal possession of a firearm. This court reversed the murder conviction due to the prosecutor's improper comments on the defendant's post-Miranda silence, violating Doyle v. Ohio. The defendant then moved to dismiss the murder charge, arguing that double jeopardy protections barred a retrial because the prosecutor intended to prevent an acquittal that was imminent without the impropriety.The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the defendant did not establish that the prosecutor intended to prevent an acquittal. The court based its decision on the trial transcripts and this court's previous decision, which concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The defendant appealed, renewing his argument that the double jeopardy clause barred a retrial and asserting that the Connecticut constitution provided broader protections.The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the prosecutor engaged in impropriety with the intent to prevent an acquittal that the prosecutor believed was imminent. The court noted that the evidence at trial, although not overwhelming, was sufficient to support a conviction, and the prosecutor's actions did not indicate an intent to provoke a mistrial or prevent an acquittal. The court also declined to overrule its previous decisions in State v. Colton and State v. Michael J., maintaining that the Connecticut constitution does not provide broader double jeopardy protections than the federal constitution. View "State v. Patrick M." on Justia Law

In 2017, the Commissioner of Children and Families obtained an order of temporary custody for a minor child, Andrew, and placed him with foster parents. Years later, the foster parents filed a motion to intervene in response to the biological father's motion to revoke Andrew's commitment, which was granted in 2020. In 2021, the court denied the father's motion to revoke commitment, granted the foster parents' motion to transfer guardianship of Andrew to them, and rendered judgment accordingly.In 2023, the Appellate Court decided In re Ryan C., holding that nonrelative foster parents are prohibited by statute from intervening in neglect proceedings. Following this decision, the biological father filed a motion to open and vacate the 2021 judgment transferring guardianship of Andrew to the foster parents, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the foster parents' motion to transfer guardianship. The trial court agreed, vacating the order granting the foster parents' motion to intervene and the judgment transferring guardianship.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and reversed the Appellate Court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court improperly upheld the trial court’s decision to grant the father's motion to open and vacate the 2021 judgment. The Supreme Court determined that the trial court had jurisdiction to grant the foster parents' motion to intervene and their motion to transfer guardianship in 2021. Consequently, the trial court lacked authority to open the 2021 judgment more than four months after notice of that judgment was sent. The Supreme Court directed the Appellate Court to reverse the trial court’s decision and to reinstate the earlier order granting the foster parents’ motion to intervene and the 2021 judgment transferring guardianship of Andrew to the foster parents. View "In re Andrew C." on Justia Law

The plaintiff sought to foreclose two municipal tax liens for the grand lists of 2012 and 2013 on real property owned by the defendant. The city of Bridgeport had purportedly assigned the tax liens to the plaintiff’s predecessor, which then allegedly assigned its interest to the plaintiff. The defendant filed an answer and several special defenses, including a claim that the Bridgeport City Council had not validly assigned the liens. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability, concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of the assignments. Subsequently, the trial court rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale.The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The defendant then appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, arguing that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof that the city council had made a resolution to assign the tax liens to the plaintiff.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff had met its burden of establishing the validity of the assignments. The court found that the plaintiff submitted certified copies of the city council’s meeting agendas and minutes, which showed that the council had authorized the assignments. The court also noted that the defendant failed to present any evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of the assignments. The court clarified that the plaintiff bore the burden of proving standing and had satisfied this burden, while the defendant’s mere assertions were insufficient to defeat summary judgment. The court also addressed procedural irregularities but concluded that the defendant had waived any related claims by not objecting. View "Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC v. White Eagle Society of Brotherly Help, Inc." on Justia Law