| |
|
Monday, February 6, 2012
|
|
|
|
Agency Courts COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
Claimant Was Not Credible On Issue Of Total Disability 
When a trial commissioner does not find the claimant credible, the commissioner is entitled to conclude that any medical evidence which relied on the claimant’s statements was also unreliable.
COMPENSATION REVIEW BOARD
Notice Of Potential Claim Was Not An Affirmative Claim For Benefits
When a claimant does not submit a Form 30C within the one year statutory period, the Compensation Review Board must defer to the factual conclusions of the trial commissioner as to whether the claim was sufficient under the totality of the circumstances test promulgated in the board’s 1994 decision in Hayden-Leblanc v. New London Broadcasting.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
Water Supply Report Was Properly Redacted For Water Safety Risks
The commissioner of the Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security had reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure of information requested on Wallingford’s water supply, including source names, maps and water storage data, may result in a safety risk and this information redacted from a water supply report was exempt from the mandatory disclosure provisions of the Freedom of Information Act pursuant to C.G.S. §1-210(b)(19).
Appellate Court CRIMINAL PRACTICE
Despite Witnesses’ Confession, Actual Innocence Claim Failed
The habeas petitioner did not establish actual innocence where the habeas court determined that the testimony of the petitioner’s witnesses who provided newly discovered evidence was not credible, including one witness whose recantation and confession were found likely motivated by his friendship with the petitioner.
CRIMINAL PRACTICE
1st Impression Issue On New Evidence For 2nd Habeas Petition
Practice Book §23-29(3) provides that a habeas petition may be dismissed by the court if `the petition presents the same ground as a prior petition previously denied and fails to state new facts or to proffer new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the prior petition' and the phrase, `at the time of the prior petition,' the majority of the Appellate Court concluded, applies to all proceedings attendant to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and not just to its commencement.
EVIDENCE
9 Year Old With Developmental Delays Was Competent To Testify
Few people inherently are incapable of testifying in some useful manner and, here, although the defendant made much of the fact that the testimony of a nervous nine year old with developmental delays was inconsistent and that she was unable or hesitant to answer many of the questions posed, such facts did not equate to an inability to understand the proceedings or to offer relevant testimony; rather, such facts provide fodder for cross-examination and are appropriate for the consideration of the jury when assessing credibility.
FAMILY LAW
Residency Requirement Was Met When Complaint First Was Filed
To satisfy the residency requirements of C.G.S. §46b-44(c)(1), the court must find domicile plus substantially continuous residence in Connecticut by one of the parties for the 12 months prior to the filing of the complaint or the granting of the decree.
LANDLORD/TENANT LAW
Landlord Reasonably Relied On Representations That Tenant Left
Practical realities counsel against finding a landlord liable for entry into a tenant’s apartment when such entry is predicated on facts creating a reasonable belief that an exception to the notice requirement of C.G.S. §47a-16 applies.
Federal Courts CIVIL PRACTICE
SCSU Student Requested TRO Against University Prof
A court may not grant a temporary restraining order unless the order is required to prevent `irreparable harm,' which is defined as injury that is actual and imminent and cannot be remedied with monetary damages.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Arrestee Alleged She Was Maliciously Prosecuted
To prevail on malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove: 1.) the defendant arranged to initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiff; 2.) criminal proceedings ended in the plaintiff’s favor; 3.) the defendant lacked probable cause; and 4.) the defendant acted with malice.
EMPLOYMENT
African-American Clerk Did Not Prove Inference Of Discrimination
To establish a prima facie case of illegal discrimination on the basis of race, a plaintiff must prove: 1.) she belongs to a protected class; 2.) she is qualified; 3.) she suffered an adverse employment action; and 4.) an inference of discrimination exists on the basis of membership in a protected class.
EMPLOYMENT
Manager Who Complained Alleged Retaliatory Discharge
The 2nd Circuit found a causal connection between an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission complaint and retaliatory conduct that took place about eight months afterward in its 1980 decision, Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
EMPLOYMENT
Pro Se Plaintiff Adequately Alleged Hostile-Work Environment
To prevail on a Title VII hostile-work environment complaint, a plaintiff must prove: 1.) she subjectively perceived the environment as abusive; 2.) severe or pervasive conduct created an objectively hostile or abusive work environment; and 3.) the environment was abusive because of race, gender, religion or national origin.
Second Circuit Court CRIMINAL PRACTICE
No Proof Former Cop Who Served As Juror #38 Was Biased
`The mere fact of membership on a police force is not presumptively a disqualification for service on a jury in a criminal trial,' pursuant to Mikus v. U.S., a 1970 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
CRIMINAL PRACTICE
Defendant Appealed Denial Of Motion To Withdraw Plea
`A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty . . . after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if . . . the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal,' pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d).
EMPLOYMENT
Failure-To-Promote Plaintiff Did Not Pass Promotional Exam
To establish a prima facie case of Title VII discrimination, a plaintiff must prove: 1.) he belongs to a protected class; 2.) he is qualified; 3.) he suffered an adverse employment action; and 4.) the adverse action took place in circumstances that lead to an inference of discrimination.
INSURANCE LAW
No Proof Hartford Fire Insurance Company Settled In Bad Faith
`In determining whether to accept or reject an offer of compromise, the insurer not only may consider its own interests but also must equally respect the insured's interests,' pursuant to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut’s 1972 decision in United Servs. Auto. Association v. Glens Falls Insurance Co.
Superior Court CIVIL PRACTICE
Plaintiff With HIV Sought Permission To Use Pseudonym
`The most compelling situations for granting a motion to proceed anonymously involve matters which are highly sensitive, such as social stigmatization, real danger of physical harm, or where the injury litigated against would occur as a result of the disclosure of the party’s identity,' pursuant to Vargas v. Doe, a 2006 decision of the Connecticut Appellate Court.
EVIDENCE
State Seeks To Introduce Slides Without Calling Lab Technician
A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation is violated, if the state introduces into evidence a formalized affidavit or certificate that contains the results of a forensic analysis and the representation that the results are valid, without obtaining the testimony of the lab technician and without permitting the defendant to cross-examine the laboratory technician.
LANDLORD/TENANT LAW
Tenant Claimed He Did Not Pay Rent Because Of Vermin
When a tenant, acting in good faith, requests that a landlord repair the tenant’s dwelling, the landlord shall `make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition,' pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §47a-7(a)(2).
Supreme Court CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS
1st In Time, 1st In Right Rule Applied To Foreclosure Surplus
The doctrine of pari passu, an equitable distribution doctrine, ordinarily is applied in the context of bankruptcy proceedings as opposed to foreclosure proceedings, in which the principle of first in time, first in right applies.
EVIDENCE
No Confrontation Violation From Barring Cross-Exam On Virginity
Even assuming that the state opened the door by questioning the victim about her virginity, thereby making relevant the issue of her sexual past, it could not reasonably be concluded that the inability of the defense to pursue this narrow line of questioning violated the defendant’s right to confrontation.
|
|
Sign In
HOME
