Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Appellee-Petitioner, Commissioner of Children and Families, sought to terminate the parental rights of Respondent-Father to his child, Samantha S. After trial began, Respondent entered into an agreement to terminate his rights. After examining Respondent to ensure his consent was valid and termination was in the child's best interest, the trial court terminated Respondent's parental rights. Thereafter, Respondent learned that Petitioner had agreed to consider his petition for a declaratory ruling given Petitioner's purported duty to promote open adoption, and filed a motion to reopen his case to seek that option. The lower court ruled that Respondent's imperfect knowledge of the status of the declaratory judgment could not be used as a defense against terminating his parental rights, and Respondent appealed. This Court reviewed the entire record and dismissed Respondent's appeal.

Defendant sought to overturn his conviction on counts of injury to a child and sexual assault. Defendant argued that the lower court improperly considered evidence protected under clergy-penitent and professional counselor-patient privilege, as well as denied him the ability to confront the victim at trial and denied him access to the the victim's education and counseling records. The victim, a fourteen year old girl, was inappropriately touched by the Defendant, her stepfather. The victim told her mother what had happened to her, and the mother phoned the pastor of their church, who then spoke with the victim, her mother and Defendant before alerting state protective services and the police. Claiming that the meeting with their pastor constituted a "counseling session" within the meaning of state law, Defendant sought to appeal a motion in limine pertaining to the privileged information that was denied at trial. Holding that the meeting with the pastor was not privileged under state clergy-penitent or counselor-patient statutes because it "lacked indicia of confidentiality," the Court upheld the lower court's ruling on the motion. With regard to Defendant's claim that the lower court denied him the ability to confront witnesses, the Court viewed the trial in its totality and found that the jury had a fair opportunity to consider facts supporting Defendant's theory of the case, and upheld the lower court's verdict.

The Court considered an appeal from Plaintiff-Appellee Connecticut Motor Cars in which the lower court found that a licensed car dealer or repairer is not entitled to a "gate fee" when it moves a wrecked or disabled vehicle from a storage area to a place where it will be retrieved by the owner. The Plaintiff operates a repair shop that also tows and stores vehicles. When the vehicle owner comes to retrieve his car, Plaintiff charges a fee for the labor and equipment used to move the vehicle from a secured storage area to a retrieval area. Two vehicle owners objected to the "gate fee" and brought complaint before the state car dealer licensing agency. Plaintiff argued that under state law, the storage and moving of the car within its facility was an "exceptional serviceâ¦not included in the tow charge," but the hearing officer disagreed. Upholding the hearing officer's decision, the Court found that the plain language of the law includes "all the activity in the gate fee," and that "the only reasonable interpretation of the regulations is that a gate fee is not permitted."

Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Burton sought an injunction against Defendant-Appellee Dominion Nuclear to halt operation of a power plant, claiming that the plant would cause unreasonable radioactive pollution to Long Island Sound and to an estuary located near her property. Plaintiff also filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to stop Defendant from using a stretch power uprate increase unless Defendant could do so without an increase of radioactive discharge. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Plaintiff's case on grounds that she lacked standing under state environmental protection laws, common law nuisance principles, and federal preemption. Holding that Plaintiff's ex parte application "does not contain allegations of substantive violations giving rise to unreasonable pollution⦠in excess of that permitted under the regulatory scheme," the Court upheld the lower courts's decision to dismiss this claim for lack of standing.

Plaintiff-Appellant Alexandre was selected for a tax audit by Defendant, to cover the period October, 1999 to March, 2005. In preparation, Plaintiff pulled ledgers, bank statements, and "z reports" or summary cash register tapes for review by the auditor. Detailed records were used to prepare the "z report", but it was Plaintiff's custom to discard those receipts once the z-report was complete. Without the detailed register receipts, the state auditor used an industry-standard method of calculating properly audited gross receipts. By this method, the auditor assessed a tax delinquency of over $250,000, which eventually lead to a tax lien on Plaintiff's business and property. Plaintiff sought a hearing from Defendant to reconsider the penalties and lien; the penalties were reduced, but Plaintiff brought suit seeking the entire assessment be set aside. The trial court concluded that because Plaintiff did not keep the detailed register receipts, he had no basis to challenge the Defendant's review of the original audit and assessment. In this appeal, the Court upheld the lower court's findings, holding that Plaintiff's "z reports" were not enough to preclude the auditor from using the industry-standard method Plaintiff's sales receipts.