Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dissolving Plaintiff's marriage to Defendant, holding that the trial court did not err.After a dissolution trial, the trial court ordered Defendant to pay alimony to Plaintiff in the amount of $350,000 per year and awarded Plaintiff $1,326,849, which represented one-third of the parties' aggregate net worth. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) correctly concluded that the parties’ purported agreement to revoke the postnuptial agreement was unenforceable and that the parties' postnuptial agreement was enforceable; and (2) correctly awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of their minor children with the defendant having final decision-making authority. View "Zhou v. Zhang" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying certain defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint, holding that Defendants were not entitled to sovereign immunity.Plaintiffs, the parents of four school-age children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, brought this action seeking judgment from the City of Norwalk's Board of Education and three of its members. Plaintiffs alleged that the negligent hiring and supervision of Stacy Lore, who was hired to provide autism related services to children in the school district, proximately caused them to suffer permanent and ongoing injuries and losses. The Board filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and, in the alternative, claiming that the doctrine of sovereign immunity mandated dismissal of the claims. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Supreme Court affirmed but on other grounds, holding (1) the trial court improperly dismissed this action on the ground that Plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies; and (2) the Board and its members were not entitled to sovereign immunity because they were acting under the control of, and as an agent of, the municipality rather than the state. View "Graham v. Friedlander" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the habeas court dismissing, sua sponte, Petitioner's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus without first acting on Petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel and providing him with notice and an opportunity to be heard, holding that the Appellate Court correctly found that Petitioner was not entitled to the appointment of counsel, notice or a hearing under the circumstances but used the incorrect analysis to arrive at that conclusion.The habeas court dismissed Petitioner's petition pursuant to Practice Book 23-29(1) for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that it was apparent, on the face of the petition, that Petitioner was not in custody for the conviction being challenged. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case with direction to decline to issue the writ of habeas corpus, holding that the habeas court should have declined to issue the writ pursuant to Practice Book 23-24(a)(1) rather than dismissing the case pursuant to Practice Book 23-29(1). View "Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming Defendant's judgment of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the admission of certain testimony during trial violated Defendant's constitutional right of confrontation.Defendant was convicted of felony murder and related crimes. Defendant appealed, arguing that the testimony of two witnesses was improperly admitted under the Connecticut Code of Evidence and the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the former testimony of one of the witnesses was improperly admitted because the State failed to demonstrate that Defendant was unavailable within the meaning of the confrontation clause because the State failed to establish that it undertook a reasonable, diligent, and good faith effort to locate the witness prior to Defendant's trial; and (2) the admission of the testimony of the other witness was constitutional. View "State v. Lebrick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of conviction of felony murder, attempt to commit robbery, and other offenses, holding that Defendant was not harmed when the State, after granting immunity to three witnesses for testimony given during the State's case-in-chief, revoked that immunity when the same witnesses later testified in the defense case-in-chief.On appeal, Defendant argued that his constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial compulsory process, and to present a defense were violated when the trial court improperly permitted the State to revoke the immunity of the three witnesses at issue in this case, causing them to invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish that, by revoking the witnesses' immunity, the State violated Defendant's constitutional rights; and (2) there was no other prejudicial error. View "State v. Collymore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment in this action to recover damages for, among other things, violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110a et seq., and for other relief, holding that Defendant's statements regarding Plaintiff were nonactionable expressions of opinion.Defendant, which publishes research reports in which it rates certain vendors, issued a research report in which it ranked Plaintiff lower than some of its competitors and made critical comments about Plaintiff. Plaintiff brought this action claiming that Defendant had engaged in a "pay to play" scheme that constituted a false and deceptive business practice under CUTPA. Plaintiff also alleged that the report contained false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff. The trial court rendered judgment for Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that all of the statements Defendant made about Plaintiff were expressions of nonactionable opinion, and such speech cannot support either Plaintiff's defamation claim or its CUTPA claim. View "Netscout Systems, Inc. v. Gartner, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court ordering strict foreclosure, holding that the Appellate Court erred in concluding that an initial entry into a record of debt was not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule when that entry was provided by a third party in the course of the sale of the debt.Specifically, the Court held that the Appellate Court (1) did not err in concluding that Jenzack Partners, LLC (Jenzack) had standing to foreclose a mortgage executed in support of a personal guarantee of a promissory note given by a third party even though the guarantee was not explicitly assigned to the foreclosing party; and (2) erred in determining that the business records exception did not apply to Jenzack's calculation of the debt owed on the promissory note where the initial entry into the record of the debt was provided by a third party. View "Jenzack Partners, LLC v. Stoneridge Associates, LLC" on Justia Law

In this postdissolution matter the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the decision of the trial court granting Defendant's motion for sanctions and for contempt, holding that there was no basis to support the award of attorney's fees and costs.This matter stemmed from the parties' oral stipulation following a motion for modification of alimony and the trial court's adoption of that stipulation as a court order. Subsequent litigation efforts saw Defendant attempting to carry the order into effect and Plaintiff challenging the order. At issue was the court's decision to grant Defendant's postjudgment motion for sanctions and for contempt and awarding Defendant the litigation expenses he had incurred following the entry of the order adopting the stipulation. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment of contempt. The Supreme Court affirmed and further concluded that the sanction for litigation misconduct must be reversed, holding that, insofar as the award was based on contempt, it could not stand on any of the grounds articulated by the trial court, and insofar as the award was based on litigation misconduct, it lacked the requisite findings. View "Puff v. Puff" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights as to his child, holding that Father's parental rights were properly terminated for lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship.Father was incarcerated when the child was two years old. At the time of the termination trial, the child, who was six years old, had no knowledge or memory of Father. On appeal, Father argued that the virtual infancy and interference exceptions to the lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship ground for the termination of parental rights was applicable because the child was only two years old when Father's incarceration separated them, and the circumstances of this case rendered contact impossible during his incarceration. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the interference and virtual infancy exceptions were inapplicable as a matter of law, and therefore, the Appellate Court properly upheld the trial court's termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re Tresin J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming Defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, holding that there was no clear, obvious or indisputable error warranting reversal of Defendant's conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on an essential element of the crime, as required by State v. Pond, 50 A.30 950 (Conn. 2012). The appellate court held that there was no obvious or undebatable error in the jury instructions and that, even if the instructions were erroneous, there was no manifest injustice necessitating reversal of the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's jury instructions were sufficient to guide the jury in arriving at its verdict. View "State v. Blaine" on Justia Law