Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant, the Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation, was found guilty of negligently and recklessly assigning Father Ivan Ferguson to serve as the director of Saint Marty’s Elementary School, where he sexually abused Plaintiff from 1981 through 1983. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; (2) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings; (3) the trial court properly granted Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s laches defense; and (4) the retroactive application of certain amendments to the applicable statute of limitations to revive Plaintiff’s otherwise time barred claims did not violate Defendant’s substantive due process rights under the Connecticut Constitution. View "Doe v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-49(a)(2) and 53a-134(a)(3). Defendant appealed, arguing that the State was required to prove as an element of the crime of robbery in the first degree that he did not own the property that he had been convicted of attempting to take from the complainant and that the State did not do so. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that the State had the burden of disproving that Defendant owned the property and that it had failed to meet this burden. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Appellate Court correctly held that the State was required to prove that Defendant did not own the property that he attempted to take from another as an element of the crime of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the Town of Groton, filed a tax appeal contesting the validity of a sales and use tax assessment issued by Defendant, the Commissioner of Revenue Services, in the amount of $240,653. The trial court dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff appealed, contending that the trial court improperly concluded that the fees collected for refuse removal services provided to industrial, commercial, or income producing real properties were subject to the sales tax. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly determined that consideration existed to support Defendant’s assessment of Plaintiff for sales tax in connection with its revenue neutral program for the collection of refuse generated by commercial, industrial, or income producing real properties. View "Groton v. Comm’r of Revenue Servs." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually and as the administrator of the estate of his son, Jonathan Radzik, sued Francisco Sylvester, a board certified specialist in pediatrics, and related healthcare entities (collectively, Defendants), alleging that Sylvester had negligently prescribed Remicade for Jonathan, which led to Jonathan’s death. At issue here was the trial court’s grant of Plaintiff’s motion to compel electronic discovery of the hard drives of certain computers used by Sylvester. Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal of the discovery order. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the discovery order did not constitute a final judgment. View "Radzick v. Conn. Children's Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of attempt to commit murder in violation of the attendant circumstances subdivision, rather than substantial step subdivision. See Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-49(a)(1) and (2). Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had attempted the commit the murder under the attendant circumstances division. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was guilty of attempt to commit murder in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-54a(1) and the attendant circumstances subdivision of section 53a-49(a)(1). View "State v. Moreno-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Suzanne Listro, a social worker employed by the Department of Children and Families, was charged with manslaughter in the first degree and risk of injury to a child after a foster child in her care died. The Department dismissed Listro for cause due to her “serious misconduct.” Listro was later acquitted of the criminal charges. The collective bargaining unit for the Department’s social workers (the Union) filed a grievance on Listro’s behalf challenging her termination. An arbitrator denied Listro’s grievance. The superior court vacated the arbitrator’s award, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded her authority in using negligence as a standard and basis for her award. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that “negligence arguably came within the purview of the [collective bargaining] agreement” and was an appropriate term of the arbitrator to use to describe Listro’s conduct, which was the basis of her dismissal for just cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in light of the just cause provision of the collective bargaining agreement and the notice to Listro that her conduct on the evening of the child's death provided the basis for termination, the trial court improperly granted the Union’s application to vacate the arbitrator’s award. View "AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2663 v. Dep’t of Children & Families" on Justia Law

In 2010, Nancy Powell-Ferri (Nancy) filed an action, which was still pending at the time of the present action, for dissolution of her marriage to Paul John Ferri (Paul). After Plaintiffs, the trustees of a 1983 trust created by Paul’s father for the sole benefit of Paul, transferred a substantial portion of the assets in the 1983 trust to a 2011 trust created by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs instituted this declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that they had validly exercised their authority in transferring the assets and that Nancy had no interest in the trust assets. Nancy filed a cross complaint alleging that Paul had breached his duty to preserve marital assets during the pendency of the marital dissolution action by failing to take affirmative steps to contest the decanting of certain assets from the trust. The trial court granted summary judgment for Paul, concluding that Nancy failed to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State does not require a party to a dissolution action to take affirmative steps to recover marital assets taken by a third party without a finding of dissipation. View "Ferri v. Powell-Ferri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s husband executed a will prior to his marriage to Plaintiff that devised nothing to Plaintiff. After the decedent died, Plaintiff requested that her statutory share be set out. The trial court affirmed in part the judgment of the probate court, concluding (1) the value of the statutory share should be calculated based on the value of the estate as of the date of distribution rather than the value of the estate at the time of the decedent’s death; (2) with respect to the period prior to the date of distribution, Plaintiff was entitled to an average yield of one third of the estate during that time; (3) the probate court properly appointed distributors to set out the statutory share; (4) Plaintiff’s claim to a statutory share was not barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and election of remedies; and (5) the statutory share should be calculated prior to the subtraction of taxes from the value of the estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in its judgment. View "Dinan v. Patten" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed a right-of-way over land owned by John Gorman and land owned by Amy and Robert Kahn. The trial court quieted title and established an easement by deed in favor of Plaintiff over the Gorman property and established an easement by necessity in favor of Plaintiff over the Kahn property. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that Plaintiff failed to prove the location or use of the easement by deed over the Gorman property and the use of the easement by necessity or implication over the Kahn property at the time his property effectively became landlocked. The Supreme Court (1) reversed as to the creation of an easement by deed over the Gorman property, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that it was the intent of the parties to the deed to create an easement appurtenant; and (2) affirmed as to the creation of an easement by necessity over the Kahn property but reversed as to creation of easement by implication over the Kahn property, holding that an easement by necessity could not be imposed under the circumstances of this case and that the case must be remanded for further proceedings on Plaintiff’s claim for an easement by implication. View "Deane v. Kahn" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case consisted of two groups of claimants - widows of deceased City of Meriden police officers (“plaintiff widows”) or firefighters and retired Meriden police officers or firefighters who have been divorced or widowed since they retired (“plaintiff retirees”). After the City reduced Plaintiffs’ health insurance emoluments under the City’s pension plan, Plaintiffs brought suit claiming that they were entitled to greater health insurance emoluments than those being provided to them. The trial court rendered judgment for the City. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the City improperly reduced the health insurance emoluments of the plaintiff widows but not those of the plaintiff retirees. Remanded. View "Kiewlen v. Meriden" on Justia Law