The Federal Tort Claims Act bars claimants from filing claims in federal court until administrative remedies are exhausted.
Genuine issues of material fact about waiver can exist, if the waiver boxes on a client's application to belong to a health club are not checked.
Genuine issues of material fact can bar summary judgment on a claim that a minor child intentionally fired at the plaintiff's motor vehicle and knew, or should have known, that the plaintiff would suffer from emotional distress, if her motor vehicle were damaged.
Allegations that a biological father allowed another man to raise his child in the mistaken belief that he was the biological father, may be sufficient to allege a cause of action in fraudulent misrepresentation.
A court can find that a law firm that represented an individual defendant when she borrowed money is disqualified from representing the plaintiff in a debt collection action against the defendant.
A court can dismiss a medical-malpractice claim that nursing care at a hospital was insufficient, if the plaintiffs' written opinions from similar health care providers do not cover nursing care.
A plaintiff who challenges election results must prove that: 1.) there were substantial violations of statutory requirements; and 2.) as a result of substantial violations, the result of the election is seriously in doubt.
A company that allegedly paid the full amount owed and that did not obtain full performance in return can prove breach of contract.
A court can find that a used car dealer violated express and implied warranties of merchantability if significant and costly repairs approaching 50 percent of a motor vehicle's purchase price are required weeks or months after the purchase.
Absent evidence of prejudice or inconvenience to the defendant, or that an amendment will delay the proceedings, a court can exercise its discretion to allow a plaintiff to amend a complaint nearly eight months after the return date.
A court may subtract net collateral source payments and the amount that the tortfeasor or the tortfeasor's insurance paid, when it awards damages.
The reciprocal attorney fee provision in the consumer contracts statute, Connecticut General Statutes §42-150bb, applies to a foreclosure action.In 2013, the plaintiff bank withdrew the foreclosure complaint that the bank filed in 2007, and the defendant filed a request for attorney fees, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §42-150bb.
When ruling on a claim that a prison diet violates the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment, a court may consider whether the prison diet is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests of controlling costs and reducing administrative burdens.
If the ends of justice served by a continuance are greater than the interest of the public and the defendants to a speedy trial, a court may exclude the period of the continuance from the time restrictions in the Speedy Trial Act.
Practice Areas: Criminal Law
Memos that describe witness interviews and that are provided to an expert who provides an opinion pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §52-190a and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial may not be subject to discovery, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances.
For a conviction of breach of the peace in the second degree violating Connecticut General Statutes §53a-181(a)(4), based on material posted about a teen on a Facebook page, the state was required to prove that the material was exhibited, distributed, posted or advertised in a public place, or, more precisely, in an area used or held out for use by the public.
To consider properly a claim that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise a sufficiency of the evidence claim on direct appeal, the habeas court must, to evaluate the performance and prejudice prongs of the test articulated in the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case of Strickland v. Washington, assess the strength of the potential sufficiency claim and examine all the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.
To prove prejudice with respect to a plea offer, a habeas petitioner must prove: 1.) it is reasonably probable that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the petitioner would have accepted the plea offer; and 2.) the trial judge would have conditionally accepted the plea agreement, if the agreement had been presented to the court.
As the 2014 Appellate Court explained in Antonio A. v. Commissioner of Correction, "[a]n attorney's line of questioning on examination of a witness clearly is tactical in nature…" and, as such, the Appellate Court "will not, in hindsight, second-guess counsel's trial strategy."
Practice Areas: Criminal Law
The 2014 Appellate Court decision in Morneau v. State explained that under Connecticut General Statutes §4-418(b), "[t]he General Assembly may, by special act, authorize a person to present a claim to the Claims Commissioner after the time limitations set forth in subsection (a) of this section have expired if it deems such authorization to be just and equitable and makes an express finding that such authorization is supported by compelling equitable circumstances and would serve a public purpose…"
Uncharged sexual misconduct evidence may be admitted to establish propensity in sex related cases if certain conditions are met, as explained in the 2008 Supreme Court case of State v. DeJesus and, here, the trial court properly determined that the charged crime, involving an attack by three men, and uncharged misconduct of the defendant alone, were sufficiently similar under the DeJesus test, because both involved sexual assaults during which the victim was choked while resisting her attacker.
The trial court's ruling precluding a defense witness did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation when the witness' testimony pertained to a tangential issue and was entirely unrelated to the defendant's theory that he was not present at the murder scene.
For an ineffective counsel claim, in assessing whether there is a substantial likelihood that the addition of omitted evidence at trial would have resulted in a different outcome, the inquiry on appeal does not begin and end with a consideration of the effect of particular evidence in isolation, rather, the reviewing court considers the cumulative effect of all of the evidence.
The Statewide Grievance Committee can order an attorney who is not reasonably diligent and prompt, in violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics, to take continuing legal education courses in IOLTA account management and legal ethics.
A municipality can possess just cause to demote a police officer who allegedly fails to follow instructions and provides answers on an exam that are copied from another officer.
To prevail on a claim that the government knowingly allowed a witness to commit perjury, a defendant must prove that: 1.) the witness committed perjury; 2.) the perjury was material; 3.) the government knew or should have known about the perjury at the time of trial; and 4.) the perjured testimony was not disclosed at trial.
Connecticut General Statutes §13a-149 provides the exclusive remedy for damages that result from a traffic signal light that allegedly malfunctioned.
The doctrine of justiciability requires that there be an actual controversy, and allegations that the defendant lawyer abandoned the plaintiff's cause of action and failed to file a complaint are sufficient to allege a viable legal claim that is justiciable.
A court can interpret zoning regulations that define "recreational vehicle" as "[a]ny vehicle designed or intended primarily for use in recreational activities" to find that a yellow school bus that has been renovated and had its seats removed is a "recreational vehicle."
Although parties to a collective bargaining contract generally are required to exhaust grievance and arbitration procedures, prior to filing a complaint in court, an exception can exist in an emergency, if the Board of Mediation and Arbitration lacks the power to grant temporary relief.
Insurance coverage that requires allegations of physical injury or destruction to tangible property may not be triggered by allegations that a trespass disturbed the homeowners' quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their home and reduced its property value.
A court can terminate the rights of biological parents, if termination is in the best interests of the minor children, who were born early and require frequent medical appointments.
Allegations that an employer's reasons for discharging a worker who suffered a heart attack kept changing can create a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the employer's reasons constitute a pretext for discrimination on the basis of disability.
Allegations that a bank representative informed the defendant mortgagor that he had been approved for a modification, and that the defendant relied on the bank's representation that he could pay less and then was informed that he had defaulted, can be sufficient to allege the special defense of equitable estoppel.
A corporate officer who allegedly engages in conduct that is unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous when he locks another corporate officer out of the property can violate the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
If a disability benefits plan defines "full-time" work as 30 hours per week, a worker who is capable of working 30 hours per week, but may not be capable of working 40 hours per week, may not qualify for disability benefits.
To prevail on a claim that denial of a request to transfer is materially adverse, a plaintiff must prove that the denial created a materially significant disadvantage in working conditions.
To prevail on a request for class-action certification, a plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the elements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy and predominance.
The Patent Act allows a court to award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party in "exceptional" cases.
For the doctrine of equitable conversion to apply, the real estate contract must be specifically enforceable.
Indemnification involves a claim for reimbursement in full from one on whom a primary responsibility is claimed to rest, while appointment, sometimes called contribution, involves a claim for reimbursement of a share of a payment necessarily made by the claim which equitably ought to be paid in part by others.
Practice Areas: Torts
For a legal malpractice claim, the jury reasonably determined that the plaintiff failed to establish the standard of care applicable to the defendant when neither the testimony of the plaintiff nor the defendant's expert witness set forth for the jury, either directly or by implication, any description of the standard of care itself, although both may have agreed to that standard and testified as to whether the defendant breached it.
Where no language in the separation agreement indicated that the legal status of the plaintiff's limited liability company was to be disregarded for purposes of calculating the plaintiff's income, the plaintiff's "gross annual income from employment" was the income actually received by the plaintiff from his limited liability company after deducting the company's expenses and not the total revenue of his limited liability company.
As explained by the 2012 Supreme Court decision in State v. Guilbert, "evidence known to the defendant or his counsel, or that is disclosed, even if during trial, is not considered suppressed as that term is used in Brady," referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1963 decision in Brady v. Maryland.
Although the trial court must assiduously defend an accused's right to counsel, the accused must not be permitted to manipulate that right to obstruct the orderly procedure of the court or to interfere with the fair administration of justice.
The 2008 Supreme Court's decision in State v. Salamon represented a substantive change in the court's interpretation of the language of the kidnapping statute and, here, the court's failure in 2002 to give a Salamon instruction, under the facts presented at trial, substantially deprived the petitioner of his constitutional right to have the jury properly informed of the meaning of the language of the kidnapping charge.
In Phillips v. Warden, the 1991 Supreme Court established that there is no per se rule that "a conflict of interest arises any time a lawyer who has been prosecuted or convicted of a crime subsequently represents a criminal defendant."
The imposition of fines in historic district commission enforcement actions brought under Connecticut General Statutes §7-147h is directory not mandatory and the trial court's decision to refrain from imposing fines did not preclude the court from awarding attorney fees to an historic district commission.
Although the Appellate Court will not decline to review a claim on appeal solely on the basis of a party's failure to seek an articulation of the trial court's decision, if that failure is accompanied by other procedural irregularities that frustrate meaningful review, the court may nonetheless decline to review the claim.
Practice Areas: Family Law
Arbitrators can find that doctor's note that indicates that a woman who has given birth via Caesarean Section requires six weeks of disability leave, before she returns to work, are sufficient to indicate that the woman suffered a "serious illness," for purposes of sick leave provisions in a collective bargaining contract.
A request to compensate a worker with additional pay when he works at a higher classification must be filed within 20 days of any actionable event and need not be filed within 20 days of the first actionable event.
The Board of Labor Relations can count the vote of a "nurse supervisor," if the employee is a "working supervisor" with only incidental supervisory functions.
Connecticut recognizes an exception to the general rule that a nonappealing party is bound by the decision of the lower court, when, as explained in the 1984 Supreme Court case of Gino's Pizza of East Hartford, Inc. v. Kaplan, "the rights of all the parties are interwoven or when the erroneous legal decision of the lower court forms the basis for all of the parties' rights…."
Evidence that a Foxwoods Casino worker allegedly stole sunglasses and then lied when questioned can support the employer's decision to discharge for theft and dishonesty, in violation of employee standards of conduct.
A neighbor's alleged use of offensive or threatening language and annoying conduct may not be sufficient to constitute nuisance.
Allegations that a motorist tailgated, sped and talked on his cell can be insufficient to allege common-law recklessness, unless the plaintiff alleges that the defendant exhibited a disregard of a high degree of danger.
A court can fine an owner until he complies with orders to remove unregistered motor vehicles, excavation equipment and junk.
A plaintiff who proves that a defendant's business violates a zoning regulation and that the operation of the business causes economic harm to the plaintiff can be entitled to a permanent injunction.
A court may consider the deterioration of a wife's health, as a result of bulging back discs, fractures in her vertebrae, tumors in her lungs and neck, Non-Hodgkins lymphoma and post traumatic stress disorder, when it awards alimony.
A minor child does not constitute a "necessary party," when a dissolution court orders maintenance or support pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §46b-56c, even if the court's order could affect a Uniform Transfers to Minors Act or 529 account that is held for the child's benefit.
Allegations that a bank misrepresented it foreclosed and obtained an ownership interest in the plaintiffs' property, and then ordered the electric company to turn off the electric service to the home during the winter, can be sufficient to allege a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.