Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' pending motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of a final judgment and transferred the case to the appellate court for further proceedings, holding that Defendant asserted a colorable claim to a right to avoid litigation under the anti-SLAPP statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-196a.Plaintiffs brought this action claiming that Defendant made false accusations against them and alleging defamation, invasion of privacy by false light, and other claims. Defendant filed a special motion to dismiss under section 52-196a, arguing that his challenged conduct arose from the exercise of his constitutional rights to free speech, to petition the government, and to associate as a member of a labor union. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court transferred the case to the lower court for further proceedings, holding that Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the complaint was based on the exercise of his right of free speech, to petition the government, or of association. View "Robinson v. V.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court transferred this appeal to the appellate court for further proceedings, holding that the trial court erred in denying Defendants' special motion to dismiss the action under Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-196a because Defendants asserted a colorable claim that they were entitled to a right to avoid litigation under the anti-SLAPP statute.Plaintiffs, including The Churchill Institute, Inc., brought this action against Defendants, students at Trinity College in Hartford, alleging libel per se, libel per quod, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed a special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that their disputed conduct was a lawful exercise of their rights of free speech and association. The Supreme Court transferred the appeal and held that the denial of a special motion to dismiss based on a colorable claim of a right to avoid litigation under section 52-196a is an immediately appealable final judgment under the second prong of State v. Curcio, 463 A.2d 566 (Conn. 1983). View "Smith v. Supple" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court dismissing Defendants' appeals from the order of the trial court denying their specials motions to dismiss the underlying civil action brought against them by Plaintiff, holding that a trial court's denial of a colorable special motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-196a is an appealable final judgment under State v. Curcio, 453 A.2d 566 (Conn. 1983).Plaintiff brought this action against claiming that Defendants breached a nondisparagement provision of the parties' settlement agreement, caused him to suffer economic damages, and deprived him of the benefit of the agreement. Defendants filed separate special motions to dismiss the action as a SLAPP suit pursuant to Conn. Gen. Conn. 52-196a. The trial court denied the special motions. The appellate court reversed and granted Plaintiff's motions to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's denial of Defendants' colorable special motions to dismiss constituted an appealable final judgment under State v. Curcio, 463 A.2d 566 (Conn. 1983). View "Pryor v. Brignole" on Justia Law

In these actions to recover underinsured motorist benefits allegedly due under certain automobile insurance coverage provided by the State pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement the Supreme Court held that the appellate court incorrectly concluded that the trial court should have reduced one appellant's award by the sums received in settlement of a claim under Connecticut's Dram Shop Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 30-102.The trial court found for Appellants on liability but awarded only a fraction of the damages sought, due in part to the court's rejection of Appellants' PTSD claim. The appellate court reversed in part, concluding that the trial court's failure to reduce Appellants' damages by their dram shop recovery violated the common-law rule against double recovery. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the appellate court (1) properly affirmed the trial court's conclusion that Appellants were not entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits for alleged PTSD; and (2) improperly reversed the judgments insofar as the trial court determined that the State was not entitled to a reduction in the awards for sums received by Appellants in settlement of a dram shop claim. View "Menard v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiff in this negligence action, holding that the appellate court properly concluded that the "highway defect statute," Conn. Gen. Stat. 13a-149, was Plaintiff's exclusive remedy.Plaintiff was traveling behind a snowplow when the snowplow hit a manhole cover and knocked it off. Plaintiff's vehicle fell into the open manhole, rendering his vehicle inoperable and injuring him. Plaintiff brought this civil action alleging that Defendant's snowplow operator was negligent under Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. The appellate court reversed, concluding that Plaintiff's sole remedy was an action pursuant to section 13a-149. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court correctly concluded that the highway defect statute was the exclusive remedy by which Defendant could recover for his injuries. View "Dobie v. City of New Haven" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of the appellate court affirming the order of the trial court rendering summary judgment in favor of Defendants in a tort action on the grounds that the claims were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, holding that no preclusion doctrine barred Plaintiff from litigating her tortious interference with contractual relations claim.Plaintiff alleged that Defendants tortiously interfered with her contractual relations and right of inheritance by exercising undue influence over her husband, the decent, with respect to a proposed amendment to an antenuptial agreement and a testamentary will. The trial court entered summary judgment for Defendants, ruling that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred both of Plaintiff's tortious interference claims. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, Plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with contractual relations was not precluded; and (2) Plaintiff was collaterally estopped from relitigating her tortious interference with a right of inheritance claim. View "Solon v. Slater" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the trial court concluding that Defendant's allegedly defamatory statements about Plaintiff made during a hearing before the Greenwich Planning and Zoning Commission were entitled to statutory immunity, holding that the appellate court erred.Plaintiff brought this defamation action seeking to recover damages for injuries he claims to have sustained as a result of Defendant's alleged defamatory statements. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that it did not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims because the statements Defendant made about Plaintiff at the commission's hearing were entitled to absolute immunity because the hearing constituted a quasi-judicial proceeding. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a hearing on a special permit application before a town's planning and zoning commission is not quasi-judicial in nature; and (2) therefore, the appellate court erroneously determined that Defendant's statements were entitled to absolute immunity. View "Priore v. Haig" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the appellate court reversing in part the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiff in this personal injury action against a police officer and his employer, holding that Defendants were not entitled to discretionary act immunity under the circumstances of this case.Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle when Zachary Kashmanian, a police officer, began pursuing him. Kashmanian struck the back tire of Plaintiff's motorcycle, causing Plaintiff to crash and sustain serious injuries. Plaintiff asserted a common-law negligence claim against Kashmanian and the City and a common-law recklessness claim against Kashmanian. The court granted Kashmanian's motion for a directed verdict as to count two, and the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff on the negligence count. The trial court then set aside the jury's verdict in favor of Plaintiff on the negligence claim, concluding that governmental immunity was applicable to Kashmanian's conduct. The court of appeals remanded for a directed verdict in favor of Kashmanian on the recklessness count. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the appellate court's judgment insofar as that court upheld the trial court's motion to set aside the jury's verdict on the negligence complaint, holding that Kashmanian's operation of a "soft car" was a ministerial act for purposes of Defendants' governmental immunity. View "Daley v. Kashmanian" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a claim brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n(b)(8) is a "cause of action created by statute based on negligence" such that apportionment is allowed under Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572h(o).At issue was whether the apportionment statute, section 52-572h, permits municipal defendants whose liability is based on section 52-557n(b)(8) to file an apportionment complaint sounding in negligence. The trial court dismissed Defendants' apportionment complaint, but the appellate court reversed, concluding that Plaintiff's claims under section 52-557n(b)(8) fell within the first exception, which it held to incorporate a negligence standard. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because section 52-557n(b)(8) expressly abrogates the common law doctrine of municipal immunity and because the first exception under the statute allows for a cause of action based on negligence, claims brought pursuant to that exception qualify for apportionment. View "Costanzo v. Plainfield" on Justia Law

In this personal injury action, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the judgment of the trial court granting the joint motion for additurs filed by Plaintiffs and awarding each plaintiff additional money for pain and damages, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting Plaintiffs' joint motion for additurs.Plaintiffs, William Maldonado and Geovanni Hernandez, filed a negligence action against Defendants after a car accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs and awarded economic damages in the amount of $17,228 to Maldonado and $11,864 to Hernandez but declined to award noneconomic damages. The trial court granted Plaintiffs' motion for additurs, concluding that the jury verdict was inherently inconsistent and awarding past economic damages in the amount of $8000 to Maldonado and $6500 to Hernandez. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court's explanation of the basis for the additur award was sufficient; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting Plaintiffs' joint motion for additurs. View "Maldonado v. Flannery" on Justia Law