Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In the dispute over two slates of candidates each purporting to be the endorsed slate of the Independent Party of Danbury for various municipal offices in the city of Danbury, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that a town clerk has a ministerial obligation to accept and file with the Secretary of State's office lists of minor party candidates that are facially valid under the terms of the state statute. The court found that the town clerk exceeded her authority by failing to file a slate of candidates approved at an Independent Party meeting, and the court should have ordered the clerk to forward that slate to the Secretary of State's office. However, the court also held that the town clerk properly filed a slate of candidates approved at a different Independent Party meeting because the submission of that slate complied with the certification requirement of the state statute. The court concluded that, given the ministerial role of the town clerk, she had no choice but to accept and transmit to the secretary both filings purporting to be the endorsements of the Independent Party, since both were facially compliant with the governing statutes. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment that neither set of endorsements should be placed on the ballot. View "Alves v. Giegler" on Justia Law

The case involves Alico, LLC, a Massachusetts-based company with offices in both Massachusetts and Connecticut. The company's vehicles, used for business, were registered in Massachusetts, and taxes were paid in that state. However, the vehicles were primarily used and garaged in Somers, Connecticut, where the company's sole member and his wife, who also works for the company, reside. In 2018, the tax assessor in Somers, Connecticut, became aware of the presence of these vehicles and retroactively placed them on the town's 2017 and 2018 grand lists, assessing property taxes on them. The plaintiffs, Alico and its sole member, appealed this decision, arguing it was unconstitutional under the dormant commerce clause of the United States constitution. They claimed that because the vehicles were used in interstate commerce and already taxed in Massachusetts, the Connecticut property tax led to impermissible double taxation.The Supreme Court of Connecticut disagreed with the plaintiffs' arguments. The court ruled that the property tax authorized by Connecticut's statute did not violate the dormant commerce clause. The court applied the test set forth in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, which determines the constitutionality of a state tax that is facially neutral but may impose a disproportionate burden on interstate commerce. The court found that the Connecticut tax was applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the state, was fairly apportioned, did not discriminate against interstate commerce, and was fairly related to the services provided by the state. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment declaring the assessments unconstitutional. The court also noted that any double taxation was not the result of a discriminatory tax scheme, but rather the plaintiffs' business decisions. View "Alico, LLC v. Somers" on Justia Law

In the State of Connecticut, the petitioner, who was convicted of felony murder and other crimes, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2018, more than five years after his conviction was deemed final. The petitioner initially filed a timely habeas petition in 2012 but withdrew it due to dissatisfaction with his assigned counsel. When filing his 2018 habeas petition, the Commissioner of Correction moved for an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely under § 52-470 (c) and (e). The petitioner argued that good cause existed to excuse the untimely filing since his previous counsel had failed to inform him of the deadline to refile his petition. The habeas court dismissed the 2018 petition as untimely, a decision upheld by the Appellate Court.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, the Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court, concluding that the habeas court’s determination that no good cause existed was based on a clearly erroneous factual finding. The Court found that the habeas court wrongly assumed that the petitioner's previous counsel had advised him to refile his habeas petition immediately after withdrawing the first one. The Court also clarified that, under the totality of the circumstances, ineffective assistance of counsel can be considered an external, objective factor that could establish good cause to excuse the late filing of a habeas petition under § 52-470 (c) and (e). The case was remanded for a new hearing and a good cause determination under § 52-470 (c) and (e) in light of its factual findings with respect to the performance of prior habeas counsel. View "Rose v. Commissioner of Correction" 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 claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State infringed on his right to due process by providing an inadequate notice of intent to offer evidence of other sexual misconduct and that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the testimony of his daughter concerning sexual misconduct he had engaged in with her fourteen years earlier. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant had no constitutional right to pretrial notice of other sexual misconduct evidence; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Defendant's other sexual misconduct with his daughter. View "State v. Samuel U." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court in favor of Defendant Barbara Lembo in this action brought by beneficiaries of an inter vivos trust and their mother alleging that Defendant breached her fiduciary duty as trustee, holding that the allegations in the complaint stated a legally sufficient claim for breach of a trustee's fiduciary duties under Connecticut law.The will of the decedent bequeathed the residue of his estate to an amended and restated revocable trust benefitting his three children. At issue was the proper administration of a portion of the decedent's residuary estate that had not yet been distributed to the trust. Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that Defendant, among other things, breached her fiduciary duty by failing to protect and collect trust property. The trial court concluded that Defendant, as a trustee, had no duty to take any action prior to the distribution of the residuary assets. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether Defendant owed the trust beneficiaries a duty to collect and protect the prospective trust property in the residuary estate; and (2) the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action against Defendant for breach of her fiduciary duty as trustee. View "Barash v. Lembo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court determining that the State Board of Labor Relations did not act unreasonably, illegally, arbitrarily, or in abuse of its discretion when it applied the clear and unmistakable waiver standard to a union's claim that the town's unilateral change to its pension plan constituted a refusal to bargain collectively in good faith, holding that there was no error.The Town of Middlebury appealed the labor board's determination that the Town violated the Municipal Employee Relations act (MERA), Mass. Gen. Stat. 7-467 et seq., by unilaterally changing the Town's practice of including extra pay duty in calculating pension benefits for members of the Fraternal Order of Police, Middlebury Lodge No. 34. The appellate court concluded that the labor board did not abuse its discretion or act unreasonably, illegally, or arbitrarily when it declined to apply the "contract coverage" standard adopted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2019. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it was proper for the appellate court to apply the clear and unmistakable waiver standard, rather than the contract coverage standard, in determining when whether the union had waived its statutory right to bargain collective regarding the manner in which the Town calculated its members' pension benefits. View "Middlebury v. Fraternal Order of Police, Middlebury Lodge No. 34" on Justia Law

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