Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Plaintiff's application to vacate an arbitration award rendered in favor of Defendant and granting Defendant's motion to confirm the award, holding that Plaintiff failed to satisfy any of the legal standards required for reversal of the trial court's judgment.Defendant filed an arbitration complaint asserting claims of breach of contact, breach of fiduciary duty, and common-law fraud. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of Defendant. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an application to vacate the award. The trial court denied the application to vacate and granted Defendant's motion to confirm the award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the arbitrator gave Plaintiff the full and fair hearing to which he was entitled under governing law, public policy, and the parties' arbitration agreement; and (2) the arbitrator properly applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to prevent Plaintiff from asserting counterclaims or defenses, contesting the allegations, and viewing the evidence against him. View "Ahmed v. Oak Management Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court awarding damages to Companions and Homemakers, Inc. for tortious interference with contractual and business relations and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110a et seq., holding that A&B Homecare Solutions, LLC was not entitled to relief on its allegations of error.Companions, the largest provide of Medicaid and state-funded home care services in Connecticut, brought this action against A&B. Following a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment for Companions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that A&B's misrepresentations were tortious; (2) the evidence was sufficient to establish that A&B's allegedly tortious interference cause Companions to suffer damages; and (3) the trial court did not err in finding that A&B's conduct was a violation of CUTPA. View "Companions & Homemakers, Inc. v. A&B Homecare Solutions" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court concluding that enforcement of in terrorem, or no-contest, clauses in the decedent's will and trust agreement against Defendant would violate public policy, holding that the appellate court did not err.Plaintiff was the son and Defendant was the daughter of Mae Salce, the settlor of the trust agreement in this case. Both the trust agreement and the will contained an in terrorem clause providing that if a beneficiary takes certain actions she forfeits her rights as a beneficiary under the instruments. The appellate court concluded that enforcement of the clauses against Defendant, a beneficiary, would violate public policy when Defendant challenged certain aspects of the performance of a fiduciary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant's actions were based in good faith, enforcement of the in terrorem clauses would violate the public policy embodied in statutes requiring probate courts to supervise fiduciaries. View "Salce v. Cardello" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court concluding that the trial court lost jurisdiction when it dismissed Defendant's pending criminal charges and, therefore, was without jurisdiction to entertain the State's motion to open the judgment and reinstate the charges, holding that criminal courts do not have jurisdiction to open a judgment following a dismissal.After Defendant was charged with risk of injury to a child and breach of the peace in the second degree the court granted his application to participate in a supervised diversionary program for individuals with psychiatric disabilities. The trial court later dismissed the charges against him. The State moved to open the judgment of dismissal on the grounds that Defendant failed to satisfactorily complete the diversionary program. The trial court granted the motion on the grounds that the dismissal was erroneous. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the matter when it rendered the judgment of dismissal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court properly concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the State's motion to open the judgment and reinstate the charges. View "State v. Butler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court finding Defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, criminal possession of a firearm, and possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant's conviction of possessing a weapon in a motor vehicle.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) any claimed error on the part of the trial court in violating Defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him under the Sixth Amendment by allowing the chief medical examiner to testify about the results of the victim's autopsy, which the chief medical examiner had not performed himself, was harmless; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant's conviction of possessing a weapon in a vehicle in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 29-38(a). View "State v. Robles" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of one count of sexual assault in the first degree and two counts of risk of injury to a child, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in admitting certain testimony pursuant to the constancy of accusation doctrine; (2) the trial court did not err in excluding impeachment evidence of pending criminal charges against the State's key witness; and (3) the first degree of sexual assault charge was not ambiguous and therefore did not violate Defendant's right to jury unanimity under the Sixth Amendment. View "State v. Velasquez-Mattos" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dissolving Plaintiff's marriage to Defendant, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.At issue in this case was the extent to which a Connecticut court may enforce the terms of a "ketubah," a contract governing marriage under Jewish law. The trial court in this case denied Plaintiff's motion to enforce the terms of the parties' ketubah as a prenuptial agreement on the ground that doing so would be a violation of the First Amendment to the United States constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Plaintiff's motion to enforce the ketubah; and (2) the trial court's alimony order, considered in light of Plaintiff's net earning capacity, was not an abuse of discretion. View "Tilsen v. Benson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the trial court ordering the disclosure of a redacted version of a police report created by the police department at the Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut Valley Hospital documenting the police department's investigation into the death of a Whiting patient after a medical event, holding that the report, with minimal redaction, must be disclosed pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-200 et seq.After the trial court ordered the disclosure of a redacted version of the police report the Freedom of Information Commission appealed, arguing that the report should be released in its entirety under FOIA because it was not exempt for disclosure by the psychiatrist-patient communications privilege set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-146d(2) and 52-146e(a), as well as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq., as implemented by the Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. 160.101 et seq. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the police report was not a communication or record exempt from disclosure under FOIA; and (2) because the report included identifiable patient information, the report should be redacted in the manner described in this opinion. View "Comm'r of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming Defendant's conviction of risk of injury to a child, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court abused its discretion in precluding defense counsel from asking potential jurors about their views on parents kissing their children on their lips. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even if the trial court improperly limited defense counsel's questions to potential jurors, any error did not result in harmful prejudice; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence a video recording of a forensic interview of the victim concerning the crimes at issue. View "State v. James K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court concluding that No. 17-4, 1 of the 2017 Special Acts (S.A. 17-4) was an unconstitutional public emolument in violation of Conn. Const. Art. I, 1 because it did not serve a legitimate public purpose, holding that the appellate court did not err.The State brought this action seeking a judgment declaring that S.A. 17-4, pursuant to which the General Assembly extended the time limitation for Defendants to bring their action against the State for injuries arising from poor air quality at public schools, constituted an unconstitutional public emolument. The trial court granted summary judgment for the State. The appellate court affirmed. Defendants appealed, arguing that the appellate court failed to consider whether the State met its burden of proving that the General Assembly's "sole objective" in acting S.A. 17-4 was to grant a personal gain or advantage to Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that S.A. 17-4 provided an exclusive, private benefit to Defendants that no other similarly situated litigant could enjoy, in violation of the public emoluments clause. View "State v. Avoletta" on Justia Law