A loss that has already occurred is not fortuitous—and is thus not insurable; accordingly, when an insurance policy has been cancelled due to nonpayment of premiums and the insured seeks to reinstate that policy, the insurer is within its rights to reinstate coverage effective only for losses going forward.
A property owner lacks standing to appeal when its property was not the subject of a zoning application and the property's zoning classification was not altered, amended, or otherwise affected by a zoning commission's sua sponte revision of its zoning regulations and zoning map.
A court can order the production of information concerning the discharge of an employee's former supervisor, if that may lead to admissible information that helps the employee's case and is not overly burdensome or prejudicial.
A court can award attorney fees to a defendant, if a plaintiff fails to provide timely answers to discovery interrogatories and requests for production. In 2012, the head safety restraint in the plaintiff's 2005 Mercedes Benz allegedly deployed and the plaintiff was injured.
Connecticut General Statutes §54-86g, as written, does not give the court the specific authority to allow a dog as a comfort tool for a child witness; the court has the inherent discretion to allow comfort tools but abused its discretion here given no proper showing of need.
The fact that two doctors were neurologists and not mental health specialists did not, in and of itself, demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in admitting their testimony regarding posttraumatic stress disorder; as licensed physicians their testimony concerning the likelihood of PTSD was helpful to the jury in considering the issues.
An unpreserved claim of prosecutorial impropriety reviewable under the 1987 Supreme Court case of State v. Williams, as explained in its 2004 decision in State v. Stevenson, must be premised on conduct that is of truly constitutional magnitude, and not mere evidentiary conduct clothed in constitutional garb.
Allegations that the State of Connecticut relied on certifications that a state corrections facility was being built pursuant to the design and in a workmanlike manner, and that the facility was not constructed as designed and in a workmanlike manner, can be sufficient to allege a negligence action that seeks compensation for damage to property.
A release of all claims in a separation contract may not prevent a suit that alleges fraud, because the wife allegedly did not disclose to the husband he was not the biological father of a child born during the marriage.
Absent evidence that a proposed conservator possesses the ability to carry out the duties, responsibilities and powers of a conservator, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §45a-650(h), a court can vacate the conservator's appointment.
Allegations that employees at a group home made an appointment for a resident of the group home to visit a diagnostic laboratory may not be adequate to indicate to the laboratory that the individual has violent propensities.
The Workers' Compensation Commissioner needed only to be convinced that it was "reasonably probable" that the decedent died of Legionnaires' Disease; empirical confirmation by laboratory testing was not required.
Allegations that a defense attorney overestimated a client's criminal history category and provided ineffective assistance may be insufficient to invalidate a defendant's waiver of a right to collaterally attack a sentence.
Prior narcotics convictions that a defendant allegedly committed as a minor can qualify as predicate narcotics convictions, if the state proceeded against the minor defendant as an adult in an adult forum.
Expressions of mixed opinion that are based on undisclosed facts are entitled to absolute privilege when made by a member of the press, about matters of public interest and concern, without knowingly distorting the facts.
Connecticut Practice Book §13-27(f)(2) provides that a party "may" tape a deposition provided: 1.) all parties receive written notice about the taping; and 2.) the deposition also is recorded stenographically.
The Board of Labor Relations can find that an election held to select a union representative is not valid, because one of the unions wrongly engaged in advocacy, during the 24-hour period prior to the election.
Without access to the resources necessary to the integrity of a fair trial, the due process right of fundamental fairness is hollow for self-represented defendants; accordingly, due process, as guaranteed under the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, requires the state to provide an indigent, self-represented criminal defendant with expert or investigative assistance upon a threshold showing that such assistance is reasonably necessary for the preparation and presentation of his defense.
Certification was found improvidently granted in this appeal in which the petitioner sought to challenge the Appellate Court's conclusion that the habeas court was not constitutionally required to provide him with an evidentiary hearing before dismissing his habeas petition.
The plain language of 42 U.S.C. §1396r-5 unambiguously indicates that the section, and its included methodology for determining what assets are deemed "available" to an applicant, are intended to apply to all applications for Medicaid benefits occurring after Sept. 30, 1989, without reference to the date that a particular asset or resource came into existence.
The word "shall" in police response procedures did not necessarily give rise to a ministerial duty to remain at a domestic violence scene when the policy language, read in its entirety, clearly relied upon officer discretion in deciding how to perform the allegedly ministerial act of remaining at the scene.
The trial court's failure to give a specific accomplice instruction constituted plain error, but the error, although obvious, was not shown to be harmful where the court gave a general credibility instruction and the jury was apprised of the reasons why it should weigh the accomplice's testimony carefully and thoroughly.
The narrow purpose of Practice Book §43-22 is to afford defendants an effective vehicle for challenging and correcting illegalities in their current sentences in connection with otherwise valid criminal convictions; it is not an alternative vehicle for challenging the validity of the underlying convictions themselves.
By enacting Connecticut General Statutes §7-152c (g), the legislature created a statutory right by which "[a]person against whom an assessment has been entered . . . is entitled to judicial review by way of appeal;" and the defendant, by failing to strictly comply with her statutorily created right to appeal from an assessment, failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Superior Court by way of an untimely motion to open.
Evidence that parties engaged in continual negotiations or discussions to resolve a legal dispute prior to one of the parties initiating a legal action ordinarily would preclude a finding that there was unreasonable delay in bringing the action.
The statute of limitations on a false arrest claim begins to run on the date on which an individual is arrested and may not be extended, on the basis that the plaintiff previously filed a similar complaint, since withdrawn, in Connecticut Superior Court.
A collective bargaining contract that permits a municipality to obtain "proof of illness" in the form of a doctor's certificate, when a worker is absent more than three consecutive working days, may not necessarily require that the employer receive "proof of illness" before the worker returns to work.
The 2008 Supreme Court explained in Bingham v. Department of Public Works, "[t]he expansive right to petition for a declaratory ruling under [Connecticut General Statutes] §4-176 does not confer an automatic right to appeal under [C.G.S.] §4-183."
While strictly and narrowly speaking, because the defendant in this foreclosure action was not a party to the committee's motion for fees and expenses, neither the filing of the motion nor the court's ruling on the motion constituted in itself a "continuation . . . of a judicial action or proceeding against the debtor," violating the automatic stay provision in bankruptcy proceedings, 11 U.S.C. §362(a); however, courts have extended the application of automatic stay to nondebtors in "unusual circumstances" where doing so would further the purpose behind the stay.
The habeas petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel by a constitutionally impermissible risk that the jury would impute to him the alleged improprieties of his attorney, when his attorney was prosecuted, but acquitted, of a nonviolent and dissimilar crime in the same judicial district as the petitioner.
Where the case against the habeas petitioner rested largely on the minor victim's credibility and the jury credited her testimony despite defense counsel's emphasizing inconsistencies in her story, the petitioner failed to demonstrate with reasonable probability that the testimony of a defense psychological expert or a more forceful and comprehensive cross-examination of the state's experts would have resulted in a different outcome to support his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
As explained in the 2014 Appellate Court case of Gordon v. Gordon, where the court, when required, "fails to file an oral or written decision, the appellant, who has the duty to provide an adequate record for appellate review… must file a notice to that effect with the appellate clerk in accordance with Practice Book §64-1(b)."
The 2005 Appellate Court in Calabrese v. Commissioner of Correction, explained that the prejudice prong of the test from the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Strickland v. Washington, requires a habeas petitioner to establish, " a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."
Connecticut General Statutes §52-557n(a) categorically establishes that no claim alleging personal or property damage by means of a defective sidewalk may be brought against a municipality except pursuant to C.G.S. §13a-149 and sidewalks can be considered defective for the purposes of C.G.S. §13a-149 by reason of snow and ice.
In Gambardella v. Kaoud, the 1995 Appellate Court concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate because the defendants failed to adduce evidence to establish the absence of a factual dispute when their affidavits denied allegations of negligence, but, critically, did not challenge the factual basis of those allegations; however, Gambardella's holding does not stretch so far as to discount, wholesale, personal affidavits that assert admissible facts made on personal knowledge, in opposition to a plaintiff's allegations.
Because the court afforded the defendant the opportunity to reconsider his guilty plea after being adequately warned of its possible immigration consequences, the court substantially complied with the requirements of Connecticut General Statutes §54-lj.
Where the defendant indicated he understood the elements of the offense to which he was pleading guilty and applicable penalties and had no questions, and the record was devoid of any indication that the defendant was not informed of the nature of the charge against him, the court properly could rely on the presumption that he was informed by his attorney of the charge and the elements of the charge.
When presented with an allegation of jury misconduct in a criminal case, the trial court, under the 1995 Supreme Court case of State v. Brown, "must conduct a preliminary inquiry, on the record … regardless of whether an inquiry is requested by counsel."
A court can find that a party who regularly consulted 26 company and jobposting Web sites and made more than 250 job contacts engaged in a reasonable and diligent job search, even though he did not pursue jobs in other states.
The parents of an adult child are not legally responsible for the conduct of that child, in the absence of any custodial or other, special relationship that may exist when an adult child has a special need for care or supervision.
A claimant who disputes an insurance company's decision that she did not qualify for long-term benefits based on physical disability may be required to prove that the decision was arbitrary and capricious.
As the 2000 Supreme Court explained in Groton v. United Steelworkers of America, pleas made under the Alford doctrine and nolo contendere pleas "may not be used against the defendant as an admission in a subsequent criminal or civil case."
It may exceed the express and implied authority of a state ethics enforcement officer, to opine that a state employee likely violated the Ethics Code, if the officer dismissed a case against the state employee because it would be difficult to show probable cause.
An attorney who allegedly fails to pay an invoice promptly despite repeated promises can engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
To obtain review of an unpreserved claim of constitutional error under the 1989 Connecticut Supreme Court case of State v. Golding, a defendant need only raise that claim in his main brief wherein he must, as stated in the 2009 Appellate Court decision in State v. Wright, "present a record that is [adequate] for review and affirmatively [demonstrate] that his claim is indeed a violation of a fundamental constitutional right;" and, to the extent that the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in State v. Ramos and its progeny requires an affirmative request for Golding review, those cases were overruled.
Although the outright denial of a defendant's opportunity to impeach a witness for motive, bias and interest implicates the constitutional protection of the confrontation clause, such a denial is subject to harmless error analysis.
When evidence is proffered under one of the exceptions to Connecticut's rape shield statute, Connecticut General Statutes §54-86f, to support an alternative theory concerning the source of the victim's injuries, it will almost always be deemed more probative than prejudicial because it implicates the defendant's constitutional right of confrontation.
Given the statutory scheme demonstrating that the legislature intended for conservatorships to be limited in scope and not to unnecessarily restrict the conservatee's independence, a conserved person has the ability to consent to sexual conduct.
In a residential foreclosure action in which the parties participated in court-sponsored forbearance mediation where a final forbearance agreement was reported to the court, a defendant may counterclaim for damages allegedly caused by the plaintiff's subsequent pursuit of the foreclosure complaint in an alleged breach of the forbearance agreement.
A contract provision calling for the imposition of a penalty for the breach of the contract is contrary to public policy and invalid, but a liquidated damages provision that fixes the amount of damages to be paid in the event of a breach is enforceable if it satisfies certain conditions.