Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The freedom of information commission ordered the University of Connecticut to disclose databases identifying persons who had paid to attend, donated to, inquired about or participated in certain educational, cultural or athletic activities of institutions within the university. The trial court sustained the university's appeal, concluding that the university could, as a matter of law, create a trade secret entitled to exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The commission appealed, contending that, in light of the public policy favoring disclosure of public records, the trial court improperly rejected the commission's determination that none of the databases at issue could be trade secrets because the university was not principally involved in a trade. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a public agency can create and maintain trade secrets that are exempt from disclosure under the Act, as long as the information meets the statutory criteria for a trade secret. View "Univ. of Conn. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n " on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former town clerk of the town of Watertown, was removed from her position after she failed to report for work. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint against the town and certain of its officials (1) seeking a writ of mandamus ordering Defendants to restore her salary and benefits from the time they were discontinued and to continue such payments for the duration of her term, (2) claiming Defendants had violated her constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and (3) seeking recovery of her lost salary. The trial court granted Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on counts one and three. The court, however, rendered judgment in favor of defendants on count two of the complaint based upon the jury's finding that there had not been a constitutional violation of due process. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment in part and remanded the case for further proceedings on counts one and three, holding that the trial court improperly concluded that Plaintiff had a clear legal right to be paid for the balance of her elected term unless or until she was removed from office. View "Stewart v. Watertown" on Justia Law

The named plaintiff in the underlying action, Ernest Francis, brought a declaratory judgment action against all members of the Connecticut General Assembly. Francis received a waiver of the process server's service fees, including a fee for copies, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-261(a)(2). The plaintiff in error, state marshal Lisa Stevenson (Plaintiff), effectuated service on all defendants. Francis' son had made the copies of the complaint at his expense. Plaintiff subsequently submitted an invoice claiming fees of, inter alia, $900 for copies of the complaint. The trial court disallowed the fee for copies. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether section 52-261(a)(2) entitles a process server to the fee for copies even if she has not personally made the copies. The Court concluded that the trial court, the defendant in error, improperly denied Plaintiff's request for fees where (1) the statute was ambiguous, and (2) clear evidence of legislative intent proved that the fee for copies under section 52-261(a)(2) was not contingent upon the process server's making the copies. View "Francis v. Fonfara" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries she sustained while working for Employer. The workers' compensation commissioner awarded Plaintiff total disability benefits and reimbursement for certain prescription medication payments and mileage under the Workers' Compensation Act. The compensation review board affirmed but remanded for a determination of the specific amounts to be reimbursed to Plaintiff. Defendants, Employer and Insurer, appealed the commissioner's supplemental findings and award. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-301(a) required Defendants to appeal to the board. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction over the appeal because the jurisdictional requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-301(b), which governs appeals from the board to the appellate court, were fully satisfied in this case. View "O'Connor v. Med-Center Home Health Care, Inc." on Justia Law

After Employee received numerous elevated blood pressure readings and was prescribed hypertension medication, Employee filed a notice of claim for hypertension benefits. The workers' compensation commissioner (1) found that a physician informed Employee more than one year prior to filing his claim that he had hypertension, and (2) concluded that, because Employee's claim was filed more than one year after that date, his claim was untimely under Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-294c(a). The compensation review board affirmed. While Employee's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ciarlelli v. Hamden, in which it held that the one year limitation period set forth in section 31-294c(a) for claims for hypertension benefits does not commence until an employee is informed by a medical professional that he or she has been diagnosed with hypertension. At issue on appeal was whether the time limitation period was triggered only after Employee's physician prescribed medication for his condition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Employee was, in fact, diagnosed with hypertension more than one year before he filed his claim, the board properly upheld the commissioner's dismissal of Employee's claim for benefits. View "Roohr v. Cromwell" on Justia Law

After Employee was diagnosed with hypertension, Employee filed a notice of claim for hypertension benefits under Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-433c(a). The workers' compensation commissioner dismissed Employee's claim as untimely under the one year limitation period of Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-294c(a), finding that Employee had notice of his hypertension more than one year before he filed his claim for benefits. The compensation review board affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether advice from a medical professional to Employee that he had an elevated blood pressure triggered the one year limitation period. While Employee's appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ciarlelli v. Hamden, which held that the one year limitation period set forth in section 31-294c(a) for claims brought pursuant to section 7-433c does not commence until an employee is informed by a medical professional that he or she has been diagnosed with hypertension. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the board applied an incorrect legal standard in upholding the commissioner's dismissal of Employee's claim. View "Brymer v. Clinton" on Justia Law

Defendant landowner applied for a zoning change to designate its parcel as a business and commercial zone and for a special exception permit for approval of the site plan of its shopping center project. The Town's Planning and Zoning Commission denied the zone change application and denied as moot Defendant's application for a special exception permit. Defendants appealed, and the trial court judge, Judge Owens, approved Defendant's application for a zone change. During the pendency of Defendant's zone change appeal and upon receipt of Judge Owens's decision, the Commission approved the special exception permit but took no official action regarding the zone change application. Plaintiffs, several individuals, appealed, arguing that the commission acted improperly when it approved Defendant's special exception permit. The superior court sustained the appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly revisited the prior judgment of Judge Owens and too narrowly construed the effect of Owens's decision as well as the actions taken by the Commission in reviewing and approving Defendant's application for the special exception permit. Remanded. View "Zimnoch v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n " on Justia Law

Plaintiff HVC Inc. was a trustee of the Honda Lease Trust. During the audit period at issue, several car dealerships entered into thousands of leases with customers (lessees) pursuant to lease plan agreements between the dealerships, the trust, and the servicer of the trust. Under the leases, the lessees were responsible for submitting the vehicle registration renewal application and renewal fees to the department of motor vehicles on behalf of the trust. Upon receipt of the renewal application and fee, the department sent the vehicle registration card to the trust, and the trust forwarded the vehicle registration card to the appropriate lessee. After conducting a sales and use tax audit for the audit period from April 1, 2001 through October 31, 2004, Defendant Pamela Law, the then commissioner of revenue services, issued a deficiency assessment against Plaintiff, concluding that the renewal fees constituted taxable gross receipts of the trust and, therefore, were subject to the sales tax. The trial court rendered summary judgment partially in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the renewal fees paid by the lessess qualified as Plaintiff's gross receipts subject to sales tax under Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-408(1). View "HVT, Inc. v. Law" on Justia Law

For several years, Plaintiff Housatonic Railroad Company purchased diesel fuel from a petroleum distributor that was used exclusively by Plaintiff as part of its interstate freight rail business. The distributor remitted the petroleum tax to Defendant, the commissioner of revenue services. The distributor separately billed Plaintiff for the amount of tax it paid to the department of revenue services, and Plaintiff paid that amount directly to the distributor. Plaintiff then submitted requests to the department for a refund of the money paid for the petroleum tax by the distributor to the department. The commissioner denied Plaintiff's request. Plaintiff appealed. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that the state was immune from suit because Plaintiff could not establish an exception to sovereign immunity under any of three separate statutory provisions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that none of the statutory provisions on which Plaintiff relied permits a rail carrier to bring an action against the state for a refund of taxes paid by a petroleum distributor. View "Housatonic R.R. Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue Servs." on Justia Law

The present matter arose from three related tax appeals involving Plaintiff Goodspeed Airport's property that consisted of a commercial utility airport and forty-three acres of open fields. The superior court denied relief on Plaintiff's claim seeking reclassification and assessment of certain of its real property as open space and disposed of all three appeals. The appellate court concluded that (1) 13.08 acres of Plaintiff's property were ineligible for open space classification; and (2) Plaintiff, notwithstanding the ongoing improper classification of its property by Defendant, the town of East Haddam, was not entitled to judicial relief from the improper assessment of its forty-three acres. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellate court improperly concluded that the trial court properly determined that the 13.08 acres were ineligible for open space classification and that Plaintiff was not aggrieved pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-117a on the basis of Defendant's ongoing overassessment of the forty-three acres. Remanded. View "Goodspeed Airport, L.L.C. v. East Haddam" on Justia Law