Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, Larissa Marland, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Norman Marland, filed a medical malpractice claim against the University of Connecticut Health Center and related entities. The decedent had been treated at the hospital and was later admitted to the intensive care unit, where he fell and subsequently died. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital staff breached the standard of care owed to the decedent.The plaintiff filed a notice of claim with the claims commissioner, including a physician’s opinion letter. The claims commissioner failed to resolve the claim within the statutory two-year period and an additional one-year extension granted by the General Assembly. Despite this, the commissioner eventually authorized the plaintiff to sue the state. The plaintiff then filed the present action in the Superior Court.The state moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims commissioner’s waiver of sovereign immunity was invalid because it was issued after the expiration of the one-year extension. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the commissioner did not have the authority to grant the waiver beyond the extension period.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiff’s action. The court held that, once the claims commissioner authorizes suit and waives sovereign immunity, the state cannot challenge that decision in the Superior Court. The court emphasized that such challenges should be raised before the claims commissioner. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with direction to deny the state’s motion to dismiss. View "Marland v. University of Connecticut Health Center" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of three counts of sexual assault in the first degree. He appealed, arguing that the second count in the state's February 2020 substitute information was time-barred by the five-year statute of limitations. This count alleged conduct from January 1, 2014, which was first included in the 2020 substitute information, more than five years after the alleged conduct occurred.The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that the defendant had notice of the 2014 allegations from the arrest warrant affidavit filed in 2018. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the arrest warrant affidavit provided sufficient notice of the 2014 conduct, and thus, the 2020 substitute information did not substantially broaden or amend the timely charges.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that the arrest warrant affidavit does not toll the statute of limitations for uncharged conduct. The court held that the timely filed 2018 informations did not mention the 2014 conduct, and the defendant did not receive notice within the limitation period that he would be called to defend against the 2014 conduct. Therefore, count two of the 2020 substitute information substantially broadened or amended the timely charges and was time-barred under the statute of limitations.The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment regarding count two, directing the trial court to render a judgment of acquittal on that count and to resentence the defendant on the remaining counts. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "State v. Orane C." on Justia Law

The plaintiff sought to register as a write-in candidate for the United States representative for the Third Congressional District of Connecticut in the November 2024 election. She claimed her registration was untimely due to following outdated guidance from the defendant, the Secretary of the State, which quoted an old version of the statute governing write-in candidacies. The plaintiff requested an order directing the defendant to accept her registration.The Superior Court previously dismissed the plaintiff's attempts to obtain relief for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff then brought this action under General Statutes § 9-323, seeking an emergency hearing to challenge the defendant's decision.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the case was not moot despite being heard after election day, as practical relief was still available. The court found that the plaintiff was aggrieved by the defendant's ruling, as the untimely filing was allegedly due to erroneous information provided by the defendant's office.Assuming without deciding that courts have the authority to excuse noncompliance with mandatory filing deadlines due to election official actions, the court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The court noted that the correct deadline was clearly stated in both the cover letter and the registration form, and the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in resolving the apparent discrepancy.The court denied the plaintiff's request for an injunction and rendered judgment for the defendant, holding that the plaintiff's lack of due diligence did not warrant equitable relief from the mandatory statutory deadline. View "Whitnum Baker v. Secretary of the State" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple offenses related to a series of robberies and burglaries in 2020. He was incarcerated following his arrest in October 2020. During pretrial proceedings, the defendant reached a plea agreement with the state, which included a total effective sentence of ten years of imprisonment followed by five years of special parole. The sentences were to run concurrently and be stayed until April 1, 2022, to ensure that the defendant's pretrial credit was not affected.The defendant pleaded guilty in multiple judicial districts, and the courts issued sentences in accordance with the plea agreement. However, the defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that he was promised 521 days of presentence confinement credit, but the commissioner of correction applied fewer days, resulting in a longer effective sentence.The trial court in the judicial district of New Britain dismissed the defendant's motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the Appellate Court's decision in State v. Hurdle, which held that trial courts lacked authority under General Statutes § 18-98d to award presentence confinement credit.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that trial courts do have the authority to direct the commissioner to apply specific presentence confinement credit to a sentence on a judgment mittimus, as established in the companion case of State v. Hurdle. The court also determined that the defendant's motion raised a colorable claim that the plea agreement required the application of 521 days of presentence confinement credit and that there was no indication the defendant waived his statutory right to this credit.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider the merits of the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. View "State v. Nixon" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with violating a protective order and was sentenced to five years of incarceration, execution suspended, followed by five years of probation. Later, he was arrested for threatening and subsequently charged with violating his probation. Due to COVID-19 related delays, the violation of probation arrest warrant was not served until several months after it was issued. The defendant remained in custody for several months before being released on bond. The trial court found the defendant in violation of his probation, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to five years of incarceration, execution suspended after six months, followed by three years and 250 days of probation.The trial court declined the defendant's request to direct the commissioner of correction to apply specific presentence confinement credit to his sentence, stating that the determination of such credits was within the purview of the Department of Correction. The defendant appealed this decision to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment, relying on its decision in State v. Hurdle, which held that trial courts lack authority to award presentence confinement credit under General Statutes § 18-98d.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that trial courts do have the authority to direct the commissioner to apply specific presentence confinement credit to a sentence on a judgment mittimus, as established in the companion case of State v. Hurdle. The court disagreed with the state's argument that the defendant was not entitled to credit starting from the date the arrest warrant was signed, noting that the defendant was not serving another sentence during that time. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment in part and remanded the case to the trial court to exercise its discretion in accordance with this opinion. View "State v. Eric L." on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree following a guilty plea. He appealed, claiming that the trial court incorrectly concluded it lacked authority to direct the commissioner of correction to apply presentence confinement credit to his sentence. The defendant also argued that his plea agreement included an understanding that he would receive such credit and that there was no meeting of the minds on this issue, rendering the plea agreement void.The trial court had denied the defendant’s request for presentence confinement credit, stating it had no discretion under the statute to grant it. The court also denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, finding no reason to believe he did not understand the terms of the plea agreement. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the trial court lacked authority to award presentence confinement credit and that the plea agreement did not include an agreement for such credit.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court does have discretionary authority under the statute to direct the commissioner to apply specific presentence confinement dates to a sentence. The court found that the legislative history and statutory text support the trial court’s inherent authority to issue such orders. The court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment regarding the trial court’s authority to order presentence confinement credit and remanded the case for the trial court to exercise its discretion on this issue.The Supreme Court also agreed with the Appellate Court that the plea agreement did not include an agreement for presentence confinement credit and that the defendant’s subjective belief that he would receive such credit was unreasonable. The court affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment in all other respects. View "State v. Hurdle" on Justia Law

The case involves the dissolution of a marriage between the plaintiff, K, and the defendant, R, with the intervenor, B, also involved due to a related New Jersey litigation. The key marital asset was the couple's home in Greenwich, Connecticut, valued at approximately $11 million, and several investment accounts. The defendant had previously pledged these assets as security in a New Jersey court case, which resulted in a $24.7 million judgment against him and his father. The New Jersey court ordered the forfeiture of the Greenwich property and imposed a constructive trust on the investment accounts due to the defendant's misconduct, including transferring $3 million to Slovakia.The Connecticut trial court found that the defendant had dissipated marital assets by pledging and forfeiting the Greenwich property and investment accounts. The court included these assets in the marital estate and ordered their sale, with proceeds to be divided among the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor. The court also found the defendant's annual earning capacity to be $400,000 and ordered him to pay $749 per week in child support, based on his earning capacity rather than actual income. Additionally, the court allowed the plaintiff to relocate with the children to the Czech Republic and granted her motion for contempt against the defendant for failing to support the family during the pendency of the dissolution action.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred in failing to afford full faith and credit to the New Jersey court orders, which had removed the Greenwich property and investment accounts from the marital estate. The Supreme Court also found that the trial court improperly calculated child support by not first determining the presumptive amount based on the defendant's actual income. The court's granting of the plaintiff's motion for contempt was reversed due to a lack of clear and unambiguous orders requiring the defendant to provide the support he allegedly withheld. The case was remanded for a new hearing on all financial issues, including the division of the marital assets, giving full faith and credit to the New Jersey court orders. View "K. S. v. R. S." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an electric distribution company, appealed from the trial court's dismissal of its consolidated administrative appeals from two final decisions by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA). PURA had found the plaintiff violated statutory obligations related to emergency planning and storm recovery during an August 2020 tropical storm, intending to reduce the plaintiff's authorized return on equity (ROE) by fifteen basis points. Additionally, PURA imposed over $1.2 million in fines for violating storm performance standards and $61,000 in civil penalties for late reporting of minor accidents.The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's appeals, upholding PURA's decisions. The plaintiff then appealed to the higher court, challenging the ROE reduction, the fines for storm performance violations, and the penalties for late accident reporting. During the appeal, PURA decided not to implement the ROE reduction, rendering the issue moot. The court determined that neither the voluntary cessation nor the collateral consequences exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. The court directed the vacatur of the portion of PURA's order authorizing the ROE reduction and the corresponding part of the trial court's judgment.Regarding the fines for late reporting of minor accidents, the court concluded that the failure to report a minor accident did not qualify as a "continued violation" under the statute. Instead, each monthly failure to report constituted a single, distinct violation. The case was remanded to the trial court to order PURA to recalculate the penalties accordingly.The court found sufficient evidence to support PURA's findings that the plaintiff violated storm performance standards by failing to provide a dedicated make safe crew for Bridgeport and inadequately communicating with city officials. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments in all other respects. View "United Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority" on Justia Law

Three registered electors from Bridgeport filed a writ of error challenging a trial judge's decision to deny their applications for arrest warrants for two individuals who allegedly violated election laws during the 2023 Democratic primary for the mayoral office. The plaintiffs claimed that the trial judge misinterpreted the relevant statute, General Statutes § 9-368, which they argued mandated the issuance of arrest warrants upon their complaint. The state of Connecticut, the defendant in error, argued that the writ should be dismissed because the plaintiffs were neither statutorily nor classically aggrieved by the denial of their applications.The Superior Court for the judicial district of Fairfield, with Judge Thomas J. Welch presiding, denied the applications for arrest warrants. The judge concluded that § 9-368 was inconsistent with the federal and state constitutions and the rules of practice, as it allowed for the issuance of arrest warrants based on a standard less than probable cause and without coordination with the Division of Criminal Justice. The judge did not reach the substantive merits of the applications and suggested that the matter could be referred to a prosecuting authority.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs in error were not required to establish statutory aggrievement to bring a writ of error. However, the court dismissed the writ on the grounds that the plaintiffs were not classically aggrieved. The court determined that the plaintiffs lacked a specific, personal, and legal interest in the arrest and prosecution of those who allegedly violated election laws, as they were private citizens without a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another. Consequently, the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the trial judge's denial of their arrest warrant applications. View "In re Criminal Complaint & Application for Arrest Warrant" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a self-represented pediatric dentist, sued the defendant newspaper for defamation, alleging that two articles published by the defendant exaggerated the scope and seriousness of disciplinary proceedings against him. The articles reported on disciplinary actions taken by the Department of Public Health and the Connecticut State Dental Commission, which resulted in a reprimand, fines, and probation of the plaintiff’s dental license. The plaintiff claimed that five statements in the articles were defamatory and that a stock photograph accompanying the articles was independently defamatory.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that the five statements were either substantially true or protected by the fair report privilege under the First Amendment. The court did not address the photograph as an independent defamation claim, as the plaintiff had not distinctly raised it as such in his pleadings. The plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, declining to consider the photograph claim because it was not distinctly raised before the trial court.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision. The court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment without treating the plaintiff’s references to the photograph as an independent defamation claim. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s self-represented status did not relieve him of the obligation to sufficiently articulate his claims. The court also clarified that the fair report privilege is not defeated by demonstrating malice in fact, and that the privilege applies as long as the report is a fair and substantially accurate account of the proceedings. View "Idlibi v. Hartford Courant Co." on Justia Law