Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff brought a negligence action against a management company and condominium association after she fell and was injured on the premises of the condominium building where she resided. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of subsequent remedial measures taken by Defendants following Plaintiff's injury. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the evidence of subsequent remedial measures was improperly admitted; but (2) the error was harmless, and therefore, the appellate court improperly concluded that a new trial was warranted. View "Duncan v. Mill Mgmt. Co. of Greenwich, Inc." on Justia Law

This litigation was the latest chapter in the efforts of Plaintiffs, including the commissioner of environmental protection, to close and remediate an area known as the "tire pond," a solid waste disposal area on land owned by Defendants, an individual and various corporate entities he owned or controlled. The nonparty plaintiff in error, Corporation, which conducted its business on land leased from an industrial park that contained a portion of the tire pond, brought this writ of error from the judgment of the trial court ordering it to vacate that land in order to effectuate the environmental remediation that the trial court had ordered in the action underlying this writ of error. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that the trial court properly ordered Corporation to vacate where (1) the trial court had the authority to enforce the injunctions ordered in the underlying action against Corporation; (2) such an order was necessary to effectuate the remediation; and (3) the trial court's enforcement of the injunctive orders rendered in the underlying action against Corporation did not violate Corporation's due process rights. View "Comm'r of Envtl. Prot. v. Farricielli" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aiding and abetting murder, felony murder, home invasion, and burglary in the first degree. Defendant elected a trial to a three judge court. The panel found Defendant guilty on all of the charges. Defendant appealed, contending that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of aiding and abetting murder and that he did not knowingly waive his right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court (1) reversed in part with respect to Defendant's conviction of aiding and abetting murder, as the evidence was insufficient to convict Defendant on that count; and (2) concluded that Defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial was valid. Remanded. View "State v. Bennett" on Justia Law

The zoning board of appeals of the town of Madison (board) approved a variance to replace Plaintiffs' house on the footprint of the prior structure. After Plaintiffs built a new house on the property, Plaintiffs submitted an application for a certificate of zoning compliance seeking approval to convert their present balcony into a large, uncovered deck. The proposed deck would fully comply with the zoning regulations but arguably would not comply with the previously approved variance. The zoning officer denied the application, and the board upheld the decision. The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the board could not deny Plaintiffs' application because the footprint limitation was not expressly described in the certificate of variance. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) conditions attached to the granting of a variance are not to be construed solely on the basis of the language in the certificate of variance; and (2) the board properly denied Plaintiffs' application for a certificate of zoning compliance. Remanded. View "Anatra v. Town of Madison Zoning Bd. of Appeals" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her husband were traveling in Plaintiff's automobile when Tortfeasor collided with the automobile, causing significant injuries to Plaintiff and her husband. At the time of the collision, the motor vehicle driven by Tortfeasor was underinsured. Plaintiff submitted a claim for underinsured motorist coverage to her Insurer. Insurer refused to provide coverage in light of Plaintiff's recovery under a settlement agreement with Tortfeasor. Subsequently, Plaintiff brought this action seeking underinsured motorist coverage under her policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for Insurer, concluding Insurer was entitled to a setoff equal to the amount of the entire settlement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Insurer was entitled to a reduction of its limits of liability for underinsured motorist coverage by an amount equal to the sum of punitive damages paid to Plaintiff. View "Anastasia v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wis." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder, capital felony, carrying a pistol without a permit, and criminal possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed, raising three claims relating to testimony and demonstrative evidence of his flight from police after the commission of the crimes, which were admitted as evidence of his consciousness of guilt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the prejudicial impact of the admission of the evidence of flight did not outweigh its probative value; and (2) Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the trial court improperly failed to give the jury a limiting instruction on uncharged misconduct evidence, and Defendant was not entitled to relief on this claim under the plain error doctrine or under the Court's supervisory authority. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants seeking a declaratory judgment that, under the doctrine of adverse possession, Plaintiffs were the owners of a parcel of land bordering Defendants' property. The parties reached a settlement agreement providing for a new boundary line between their properties. The agreement provided that Defendants would apply for and pursue a variance from the town zoning board of appeals because the new boundary line left Defendants with slightly less than the minimum frontage requirement. Plaintiffs later filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, which the trial court granted. The trial court ultimately conveyed the property to Plaintiffs. The appellate court reversed in part and remanded to the trial court with direction to render a judgment of adverse possession in favor of Plaintiffs contingent on the parties' compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The Supreme Court granted Defendants' petition for certification to appeal. However, after examining the record, the Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. View "Vance v. Tassmer" on Justia Law

Pictometry International Corporation was engaged in the business in selling specialized aerial photographic services. Pictometry contracted with the department of information technology to license the department of environmental protection (DEP) to use certain aerial photographic images and associated data that were owned and copyrighted by Pictometry. Stephen Whitaker requested that the DEP provide him with the images and data. The DEP indicated that it would provide copies of the images for a fee provided for in the licensing agreement. Whitaker filed a complaint against the DEP with the freedom of information commission (commission). The commission determined that, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (act), the DEP was required to provide Whitaker with the images at minimum cost but was not required to provide the associated data. The trial court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the commission improperly ordered the DEP to provide copies of the images without first determining whether it was feasible for the DEP to provide such copies and whether doing so would pose a public safety risk; and (2) if the commission determined on remand that Whitaker is entitled to copies of the images, Whitaker was required to pay a $25 per image fee. View "Pictometry Int'l Corp. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Juvenile entered a plea of guilty to robbery in the second degree. The superior court found Juvenile to be delinquent and ordered him to be committed to the custody of the department of children and families (department) in an out-of-state facility. The department subsequently filed a motion to intervene in the matter, arguing that the court's orders exceeded the court's placement authority pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-140. The court denied the motion to intervene. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, concluding that section 46b-140 does not give the superior court the authority to place a juvenile in an out-of-state facility. While this appeal to the Supreme Court was pending, the trial court modified Juvenile's probation to permit him to return to Connecticut from his placement out-of-state. The Supreme Court dismissed Juvenile's appeal as moot and not capable of repetition, yet evading review, as the legislature's most recent amendment to section 46b-140 firmly establishes that the statute does not authorize the superior court to order the direct placement of a child committed to the department in an out-of-state residential facility. View "In re Jeffrey M." on Justia Law

The vehicle Plaintiff was driving collided with a parked fire truck that was responding to an accident, and Plaintiff sustained serious physical injuries. Plaintiffs subsequently filed this action against the Town and others, alleging that the Town was negligent in that the fire truck and lane closures were inadequately marked and the positioning of the fire truck constituted a nuisance. The trial court granted the Town's motion to strike the negligence counts of the basis of governmental immunity. The court also granted the Town's motion to strike Plaintiffs' nuisance counts on the basis of Himmelstein v. Windsor and entered judgment in favor of the Town. The appellate court reversed in part, concluding that its decision in Himmelstein did not bar Plaintiffs' nuisance claims. The appellate court drew a distinction between the present case and Himmelstein, noting that the nuisance claim in Himmelstein was barred by the exclusivity provision of Conn. Gen. Stat. 13a-149. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' nuisance claims here were clearly distinguishable from those asserted in Himmelstein, as in the instant case, Plaintiffs' nuisance counts did not fall within the scope of section 13a-149. View "Kumah v. Brown" on Justia Law