Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Before they were married, Wife and Husband entered a prenuptial agreement. Approximately ten years later, Wife brought a marital dissolution action against Husband. In accordance with an agreement to arbitrate in the prenuptial agreement, the trial court ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration on the matter of the sale of the parties’ residence. The arbitrator issued a partial award and then a final award. The trial court confirmed the partial award and confirmed in part, modified in part, and vacated in part the final arbitration award. Defendant appealed. The trial court subsequently entered judgment dissolving the marriage, allocating property, interpreting the prenuptial agreement, and deciding all pending motions. Defendant filed a second appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly applied Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-66(c) to the agreement to arbitrate contained within the prenuptial agreement; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion for leave to file an amended answer and cross complaint; and (3) the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by issuing orders in contravention of the express terms of the prenuptial agreement. View "LaFrance v. Lodmell" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of burglary in the third degree and larceny in the third degree. The Appellate Court reversed defendant's convictions, concluding that it was plain error for the trial court not to instruct the jury, as mandated by General Statutes 54-84 (b), that it may draw no unfavorable inferences from defendant's failure to testify. The court granted the state’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court properly reversed defendant’s conviction under the plain error doctrine. The court concluded that, even if a violation of section 54-84 (b) is subject to harmless error analysis, the state cannot establish that the violation in the present case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "State v. Ruocco" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appeals, upon the court's grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court denying a motion of defendant to vacate a prior judgment by Judge Resha which "modified, by stipulation, a portion of the judgment of dissolution that ordered that the plaintiff’s pension benefits be divided equally between the parties." The court concluded that: (1) given a conflict in the case law on point and the Superior Court’s plenary jurisdiction over family relations matters, the Appellate Court improperly determined that it was ‘"entirely obvious" that Judge Resha lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the property distribution in the judgment of dissolution; and (2) considerations of finality of judgments, as set forth in section 12 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, do not support permitting defendant to mount a collateral attack on the modified judgment. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court. View "Sousa v. Sousa" on Justia Law

Grievant, a state employee and a member of a Union, was terminated after he was caught smoking marijuana. The Union contested Grievant’s termination. Concluding that complete termination of Grievant’s conduct was not the only appropriate penalty for his misconduct, an arbitrator reinstated Grievant to his employment and imposed a number of sanctions and conditions short of termination. The trial court vacated the award, concluding that there was a well-defined public policy against the use of marijuana and that the arbitrator’s award violated that policy. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that reinstatement of the Grievant violated public policy. View "State v. Conn. Employees Union Indep." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of sexual assault and risk of injury. Petitioner failed to appeal from the judgment of conviction. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the trial court had conducted an inadequate canvass and erroneously concluded that Petitioner knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. The habeas court granted the petition and ordered a new trial, concluding that the public defender’s office had erred in determining that Petitioner was ineligible for the assistance of counsel. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that Petitioner had advanced a claim of public defender error in the habeas court; and (2) the issue of whether Petitioner’s claims were procedurally defaulted was not properly before the Court. Remanded. View "Newland v. Comm’r of Corr." on Justia Law

The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights as to her two minor children and appointed the Commissioner of Children and Families as the children's statutory parent. The Appellate Court affirmed. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court made an improper comparison between the parenting abilities of Mother and those of the therapeutic foster mother of the children to support the court’s conclusion that Mother had failed to reach a sufficient level of personal rehabilitation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not improperly compare the abilities of Mother and the therapeutic foster mother of the children during the court’s adjudicative phase of its judgment in finding that Mother failed to achieve a reasonable degree of rehabilitation. View "In re James O." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree and one count of risk of injury to a child. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the trial court properly instructed the jury on the use of constancy of accusation evidence; (2) the constancy of accusation doctrine should be modified to address the potential prejudice to defendants caused by the testimony of multiple constancy witnesses; and (3) there is no reason to order a new trial when testimony, such as that presented in the instant case, has been properly admitted under the Court’s former articulation of the constancy of accusation doctrine. View "State v. Daniel W. E." on Justia Law

Child Doe brought a civil action against Mark Tully, alleging that Tully negligently sexually assaulted Doe while he was intoxicated. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company previously issued a homeowners insurance policy to Tully providing that State Farm would defend Tully from claims resulting from an “occurrence” but not from claims resulting from Tully’s intentional actions. State Farm brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to defend Tully under the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm, concluding that Tully’s actions fell outside the scope of the policy and, therefore, State Farm had no duty to defend him under the presumption of intent established in United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Marburg. Tully and Doe appealed, arguing that the evidence that Tully was intoxicated at the time of the incident created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his actions were intentional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that evidence of voluntary intoxication may not negate intent in duty to defend cases such as the case here. View "State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tully" on Justia Law

The trial court found that VitalWorks, Inc. and Cerner Physician Associates, Inc. (together, Defendants) violated the Connecticut Unfair trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by making misrepresentations during the sale of practice management and electronic medical records software to Western Dermatology Consultants, P.C. (Plaintiff). The Appellate Court reversed and directed the trial court to render judgment for Defendants on the CUTPA count, concluding that, under applicable choice of law principles, the law of New Mexico, rather than CUTPA, governed Plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court with respect to its disposition of Plaintiff’s CUTPA claim and otherwise affirmed, holding that the Appellate Court did not err in determining that Plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim is governed by New Mexico law, but the case must be remanded for a new trial so that New Mexico law can be applied to that claim. Remanded to the trial court for a new trial on Plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim. View "Western Dermatology Consultants, P.C. v. VitalWorks, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexual assault in the first degree. The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the trial court erred in excluding a prospective juror for cause on the ground that he was “not able to speak and understand the English language” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. 51-217(a)(3), but the error was not prejudicial. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court’s purportedly improper exclusion of the prospective juror should constitute per se reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Appellate Court did not err in determining that the trial court’s excusal of the prospective juror for cause under Conn. Gen. Stat. 51-217(a)(3) was subject to reversal only upon a showing of prejudice; and (2) the improper removal of the prospective juror did not entitle Defendant to a new trial in the absence of a showing of prejudice. View "State v. Gould" on Justia Law