Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court affirming the order of the superior court granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the first count of Plaintiff's complaint in this action to recover damages for the allegedly wrongful discharge of Plaintiff, holding that summary judgment was improper.Defendant, a helicopter flight training school, hired Plaintiff as a flight instructor. When Plaintiff refused to share fees that he expected to receive as a Federal Aviation Administration certified pilot examiner Defendant terminated his employment. Plaintiff brought this action alleging wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy embodied in Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-73(b). The Supreme Court held that the appellate court improperly upheld the trial court's summary judgment for Defendant because genuine material questions of fact remained. View "Dunn v. Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the trial court's granting of a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant, the Archdiocese of Hartford, on the grounds that Plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the terms of a charitable gift, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing.Plaintiffs, parents of students and students attending Our Lady of Mercy School (OLM) in Madison, initiated the underlying action alleging that a testamentary bequest from From H. Rettich to OLM should be viewed as an endowment that resulted in a constructive trusting benefitting Plaintiffs, with Defendant acting as a trustee. The trial court concluded that Plaintiffs did not have standing under the special interest exception to the common-law rule, Conn. Gen. Stat. 3-125 that the attorney general has exclusive authority to enforce the terms of the charitable gift. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court correctly determined that Plaintiffs did not have standing under the special interest exception to bring an action to enforce the bequest. View "Derblom v. Archdiocese of Hartford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court reversing Defendant's conviction following her conditional plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of narcotics with intent to sell, holding that the appellate court incorrectly determined that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence seized by the police following a warrantless entry into her apartment on the grounds that the exigent circumstances and emergency aid doctrines supported the warrantless search of her apartment. The appellate court agreed and reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the warrantless entry was supported by the exigent circumstances doctrine; and (2) the evidence supported an objectively reasonable belief that someone inside Defendant's apartment was in need of emergency medical aid. View "State v. Curet" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.At issue before the jury in this case was to decide whether to credit the testimony of two men, Eric Canty and Jules Kierce, who claimed to have been eyewitnesses to the murder committed years earlier of Isaiah Gantt, for which Defendant was convicted. Canty and Kierce were both incarcerated when they first contacted the state about the case, and both received consideration in return for testifying pursuant to cooperation agreements. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in failing to give the jury a jailhouse informant instruction requested by defense counsel; (2) did not abuse its discretion in admitting the cooperation agreements of Canty and Kierce into evidence; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow cross-examination on the details of a prior arrest of Kierce. View "State v. Calhoun" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying a motion to intervene on the grounds that it was untimely, holding that the proposed intervenors were not entitled to relief on their claim of error.Plaintiffs appealed to the trial court from a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of New Canaan (Board) upholding the issuance of a zoning permit to Grace Farms Foundation, the intervening defendant. Nearly nineteen months later and after the trial court issued a decision remanding the case to the Board for further proceedings, the proposed intervenors brought the motion to intervene at issue. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it was untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the motion to intervene as of right was untimely. View "Markatos v. Zoning Board of Appeals" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court upholding Defendant's conviction of violating Conn. Gen. Stat. 14-227a(a) and the enhancement of his sentence under Conn. Gen. Stat. 14-227a(g), holding that the appellate court correctly concluded that the trial court had properly sentenced Defendant as a third time offender under section 14-227a(g).At issue on appeal was whether the appellate court erred in concluding that the elements of Florida's driving under the influence statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. 316.193, which Defendant had twice been convicted of violating, were substantially the same as the elements of section 14-227a(a) for enhancement purposes under section 14-227a(g). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the essential elements of section 14-227a(a) and section 316.193 were substantially the same. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of Plaintiffs in this action for a declaratory judgment to determine whether Plaintiffs were obligated to defend and indemnify Defendant under insurance policies for damages awarded against Defendant in a separate action, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.At issue was whether Plaintiffs, insurers, were obligated to indemnify Defendant, a business owner, under an insurance policy for liability arising from Defendant's false imprisonment of his company's employment at her workplace. The trial court concluded that Plaintiffs had a duty to indemnify Defendant, but the appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case. After a trial de novo, the trial court concluded that coverage was barred by the policy's "business pursuits" exclusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard at the trial de novo; and (2) Defendant's remaining claims were without merit. View "Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pasiak" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the trial court denying a property owner's motion for summary judgment in the underlying dispute with a contractor arising from a construction project, holding that the trial court correctly denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment.Defendants hired Plaintiff to serve as a general contractor to renovate a home located on Greenwich property. Defendants later terminated their contractual relationship with Plaintiff. Plaintiff served mechanics' liens on Defendants and brought this action to foreclose its lien. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the trial court was required to give res judicata effect to the findings of the trial court in a prior action between Plaintiff and one of Defendants' subcontractors. The trial court denied Defendants' summary judgment motion, determine that all four required elements of res judicata were not met. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court did not err in holding that the presumption of privity that the Supreme Court held to apply in Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc., 208 A.3d 1223 (Conn. 2019), did not apply to the instant case. View "Strazza Building & Construction, Inc. v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court concluding that Plaintiff's motion to open and set aside a final judgment of divorce should have been denied instead of dismissed, holding that New York's plenary action rule "was so interwoven with Plaintiff's cause of action as to be deemed substantive."During their divorce trial, the parties in this case settled their dispute by entering into a separation agreement that incorporated New York's plenary action rule. After she moved to Connecticut with her new husband, Plaintiff filed a motion to open and set aside the divorce judgment, claiming fraud on the part of Defendant. The trial court applied New York's plenary action rule and dismissed the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court held (1) under New York substantive law, Plaintiff was required to bring a plenary action; but (2) the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to open, and therefore, the motion should have been denied rather than dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plenary action rule was substantive, and therefore, the appellate court correctly determined that Plaintiff's motion to open and vacate the divorce judgment should have been denied. View "Gershon v. Back" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a minor and two counts of risk of injury to a child, holding that the trial court improperly failed to order that certain material be turned over to the defense and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by not ordering disclosure of the victims' psychiatric records to the defense. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the trial court (1) committed harmful error by failing to order that exculpatory and relevant impeachment material contained in the victims' psychiatric records be turned over to the defense; (2) improperly precluded cross-examination of the mothers of the victims concerning their U visa applications; and (3) improperly instructed the jury. View "State v. Juan A. G.-P." on Justia Law