Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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