Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed an amended revised complaint alleging that he suffered personal injury and damages that were caused by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant, the Town of Orange. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim because Plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirement of the municipal highway defect statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. 13a-149. The trial court agreed with Defendant and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff appealed, claiming that because he did not assert his claim under section 13a-149, the trial court should not have found that Defendant could raise its jurisdiction argument regarding section 13a-149 in a motion to dismiss. The Appellate Court reversed on the ground that the facts in the record did not support a determination that Plaintiff’s claim fell within the ambit of section 13a-149. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because a factual dispute regarding jurisdiction remained unresolved at this stage of the proceedings, the Appellate Court properly reversed the trial court’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s action. View "Cuozzo v. Orange" on Justia Law

When Sandy Niro commenced this action for dissolution of her marriage to Peter Niro, she served a subpoena duces tecum on Peter’s brother, Anthony Nero, and Anthony’s wife, Nanette Niro (together, Plaintiffs), seeking certain financial records. The trial court denied Plaintiffs’ motions to quash the subpoenas and ordered them to produce the records. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a writ of error with the Supreme Court challenging the trial court’s order of production. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that the trial court’s order was not an appealable final judgment under the test established in State v. Curcio, and therefore, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the writ of error. View "Niro v. Niro" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s decedent received medical care and treatment from Defendants and, thereafter, died in August 2007. Plaintiff extended the two-year statute of limitations contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-555 until November 2009, at which point Plaintiff sent a summons and complaint to a marshal and requested that Defendants be served. Due to an error on the part of the marshal, the trial court dismissed the claims against Defendants in April 2011 for improper service. In December 2011, Plaintiff commenced the present wrongful death action. The trial court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss on the basis of the two-year statute of limitations, concluding that Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-592, the accidental failure of suit statute, did not operate to save Plaintiff’s action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly determined that section 52-592 did not save the action. Remanded. View "Dorry v. Garden" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant alleging, inter alia, fraud and civil theft. The trial court found in favor of Plaintiff on eight counts of the complaint and awarded him $342,648 in compensatory damages. The court also found Plaintiff was entitled to “punitive damages in the form of attorney’s fees” on four of the counts. After Defendant filed this appeal, the trial court awarded Plaintiff $23,400 in punitive damages, which represented the amount claimed in attorney’s fees. Thereafter, the Appellate Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal for lack of a final judgment by relying on its decision in Lord v. Mansfield. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Appellate Court improperly dismissed Defendant’s appeal for lack of a final judgment. The Court held that Lord was wrongly decided because it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Paranteau v. DeVita, which adopted the bright line rule that “a judgment on the merits is final for purposes of appeal even though the recoverability or amount of attorney’s fees for the litigation remains to be determined.” View "Hylton v. Gunter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendant, alleging that Defendant aided and abetted Plaintiff’s former attorneys in breaching their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and that Defendant’s actions violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The trial court entered summary judgment for Defendant, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable three year statutes of limitations and that tolling was inapplicable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff sufficiently invoked the continuing course of conduct doctrine before the trial court; but (2) equitable tolling pursuant to the continuing course of conduct doctrine was not available under the facts of this case. View "Flannery v. Singer Asset Fin. Co., LLC" on Justia Law

This action was the culmination of a long-standing disagreement between two attorneys. The present appeal centered on the judgment of the appellate court concluding that Conn. Gen. Stat. 51-183c required the judge trial referee to recuse himself from presiding over a hearing regarding the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the appellate court improperly considered the merits of Defendant’s claims regarding the recusal of the judge because this issue was moot; and (2) because the appellate court remanded the case for a new hearing without addressing Defendant’s other claims, the case must be remanded for consideration of those claims. View "Gagne v. Vaccaro" on Justia Law