A board of education and principal are immune for discretionary conduct, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §52-557n, unless they know that harm is imminent to an identifiable victim.
Practice Areas: Education Law
The Connecticut Medical Examining Board can find that a doctor engages in misconduct, if the doctor sends a patient numerous text messages of a personal nature, unrelated to treatment, calls the patient "Sweety," and asks the patient to meet him at a restaurant.
A court can find that a lump sum disability benefit does not constitute a marital asset, because the party who received the benefit became disabled prior to the marriage, and the disability will affect that party for the remainder of his life.
A habeas petitioner who appeared to comprehend legal concepts may not be able to prove it was ineffective assistance not to request a mental examination on whether he was competent to stand trial, even if he suffered from mental health issues.
Practice Areas: Criminal Law
Defendants who sign a mortgage and note to a contractor and who allege that the contractor's work was defective may be entitled to an offset, if they prevail on their counterclaim that the contractor's work was defective.
A court may not include attorney fees and interest in an oral contract for emergency snow removal, if the contract did not explicitly contemplate attorney fees and interest, even if the parties' previous written contracts included attorney fees and interest.
Evidence that a summons was brought to the chief clerk of the court during the 30-day appeal period and that the chief clerk did not accept the summons at that time, because service of process had not yet been effectuated, can be sufficient to comply with Connecticut General Statutes §45a-186(a).
Courts that award attorney fees may consider the amount of time spent and the attorney's hourly rate, as well as the novelty of the legal questions, the skill required, the amount involved and the results obtained.
An inference of discrimination can exist if an employer hires a job candidate who is less qualified, weak in an essential job skill, Caucasian and significantly younger.
To plead a prima facie case of age discrimination, a plaintiff must allege: 1.) he belongs to a protected class; 2.) his performance was satisfactory; and 3.) he suffered an adverse employment action in circumstances that led to an inference of discrimination on the basis of age.
A female worker who alleges that her employer eliminated her job when she was nine months pregnant and was ordered to take bed rest can allege a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 United States Code §2612(a)(1)(A).
To plead a cause of action under 42 United States Code §1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendants, acting under color of law, deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the constitution or federal law.
A court can enforce a contract provision that requires that parties engage in a good-faith attempt to resolve their claims via alternative dispute resolution, prior to filing an action in District Court.
Res judicata did not apply to bar the plaintiff's claims in this probate appeal which involved different operative facts than those underlying the claims in the plaintiff's prior probate appeal, and the plaintiff did not have an adequate opportunity to litigate the present claims in the earlier proceeding.
Support was lacking for the proposition that an easement subject to a condition subsequent can be terminated only by a material breach and the doctrine of disproportionate forfeiture was inapplicable.
As explained in the 2014 Appellate Court case of Cammarota v. Guerrera, "[p]rofessional negligence implicates a duty of care, while breach of fiduciary duty implicates a duty of loyalty and honesty."
Summary judgment was properly granted on racial discrimination claims as no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding plaintiffs' failure to present evidence showing that the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason presented by the defendants was merely pretextual.
While the defendant was in police custody and had not been advised of his rights under the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona, the inculpatory statement he uttered was not obtained in violation of his Miranda rights when it was not the product of police interrogation or responding to any police questions and general information police provided was not calculated to provoke a response.
As explained by the 2013 Appellate Court in Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, "[t]he habeas judge, as the trier of facts, is the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony."
The habeas petitioner could not show, as required, that his counsel's allegedly deficient performance in failing to object to a videotape was prejudicial and, as explained in the 2012 Supreme Court case of Michael T. v. Commissioner of Correction, that "as a result of his trial counsel's deficient performance, there remains a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict that resulted in his appeal," when the videotape was merely cumulative of the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses who identified the petitioner as the robber.
The habeas petitioner could not prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim when he did not establish prejudice from counsel's actions; here, in trial counsel's failing to present the testimony of three witnesses regarding a third party culpability claim, when no testimony directly connected a third party to the crime.
Pawn-broker repurchase agreements are subject to the lower interest rate cap established in the usury statute, Connecticut General Statutes §37-4, and pawnbroker loans are subject to the higher interest rate cap in the pawnbroker interest rate statute, C.G.S. §21-44.
The savings statute, Connecticut General Statutes §52-592, allows for an action to be saved if it was commenced within the time limited by law, even if improper service was made within that time, if the defendant had effective notice during that time period and, "the time limited by law" includes the 30 day time period for a marshal to effectuate service under C.G.S. §52-593a.
The State of Connecticut can discharge a worker who allegedly engages in illegal conduct and violates department directives.
Absent evidence that an employee was dishonest or insubordinate, arbitrators can reduce a discharge to a suspension without pay.
A city can possess just cause to discharge a school worker for off-duty conduct that involves violence with firearms and students, even if the off-duty conduct only results in an infraction.
A plaintiff must exhaust available and adequate administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial remedies.
A defendant may not be entitled to a jury instruction on duress as an affirmative defense as a result of evidence that the defendant allegedly sat, alone and in possession of a firearm, in the driver's seat of an automobile that had just been the scene of a kidnapping and murder, awaiting the return of his accomplice, who was out of sight disposing of the victim's body.
Practice Areas: Criminal Law
A defendant may not be able to prove that his due-process rights were violated, as a result of a lengthy delay before his revocation hearing, if evidence exists that the defendant benefited from the delay.
Generally, a defendant who unsuccessfully pursues the defense of government entrapment is not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility at sentencing, pursuant to United States v. Taylor, a 2007 decision of the 2nd Circuit.
Practice Areas: Criminal Law
To prove a violation of substantive due process, a plaintiff may be required to prove: 1.) he has a valid property interest; and 2.) the defendants infringed on his property right in an arbitrary or irrational way.
To prevail on claims that defendants violated the plaintiff's right to equal protection, the plaintiff must allege that 1.) he was treated differently than other, similarly situated individuals; and 2.) impermissible considerations of race, religion, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure existed.
A court can rescind the purchase-and-sales agreement and award restitution and punitive damages, if a potential buyer proves that the seller fraudulently failed to disclose material facts and violated CUTPA, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
An attorney is not entitled to attorney fees that were generated when he and his former law firm partner were no longer associated, pursuant to Rule 1.5(e).
An employer can discipline a worker in response to off-duty conduct, if a sufficient nexus exists between off-duty conduct, work responsibilities and the employer's interests.
A court can find it is in the best interests of the minor child that a parent not engage in substance abuse and order that party not to consume any alcohol and to undergo random drug tests.
A court can award economic damages for medical expenses and non-economic damages, for pain and suffering and then reduce the amount of damages 50 percent because of comparative negligence.
A defendant who, in the course of his "business, profession or employment supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he [or she] fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information," pursuant to Glazer v. Dress Barn, a 2005 decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court.
An individual who is capable of the full range of light work and whose impairments do not meet or equal listed impairments, may not qualify as disabled, for purposes of Social Security disability benefits.
Absent an expert opinion, a plaintiff may not be able to prove that eating a cheeseburger caused a subsequent illness and that the cheeseburger was defective.
Allegations that the parties signed a contract for full-time, exclusive employment, that the employer fully performed, that the employee breached the contract, because he simultaneously worked for another company, and that the employer was injured, can be sufficient to allege breach of employment contract.
Allegations that an individual outside the protected class replaced the plaintiff may be sufficient to allege a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of race.
Federal and state officials are entitled to qualified immunity on claims for monetary damages unless a plaintiff alleges that they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established.
Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, is neither vague nor overbroad because case law and "the lore of the profession," as explained by the 5th Circuit in the 1988 case of Howell v. State Bar of Texas regarding a similar rule, provide sufficient guidance to attorneys in determining proper conduct.
Practice Areas: Legal Profession
Like the admission of mug shots, testimony regarding the defendant's photograph being included among "target" photographs of suspected drug dealers, indicated prior criminal behavior on the defendant's part, and therefore, constituted prior uncharged misconduct evidence within the meaning of Connecticut Code of Evidence §4-5.
Because two attorneys advised the habeas petitioner collaboratively, the statements of one attorney directly influenced whether the other attorney's advice was adequate and the petitioner, in bringing his ineffective counsel claims, waived the attorney-client privilege as to both attorneys.
In the 1987 decision in State v. Williams, Connecticut's Supreme Court construed Connecticut General Statutes §53a-167a, concerning interfering with an officer, "to avoid the risk of constitutional infirmity" and so as "to proscribe only physical conduct and fighting words;" applying Williams here, insufficient evidence supported the defendant's conviction of attempted interfering with an officer for sending a text message to a witness telling him not to write a statement and to "keep [his] mouth shut."
The confidentiality restrictions on youth offender records in Connecticut General Statutes §54-76l(a) does not extend to those records held by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and did not create a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the defendant's fingerprint records held by the F.B.I. Terrance Easton relevantly was charged in two informations with counts of home invasion, sexual assault and burglary.
The term "reasonable attorney's fees" has acquired a judicially settled meaning that includes fees accrued by an attorney's paralegal to aid the attorney in the representation of his client.
An analysis under the Supreme Court's 1997 decision in State v. Porter assesses the witness' methods, his reasoning and procedures, used to reach his conclusions, rather than assessing a witness' qualifications, his knowledge and experience.
Although the defendant's constitutional right to confront the complainant trumps the state's interest in protecting the confidentiality of sealed records, the relevancy of the proffered evidence must be established before such confidentiality can be breached.
To ensure that only serious expressions of an intention to commit an act of unlawful violence are punished, as the First Amendment requires, the state must do more than demonstrate that a statement could be interpreted as a threat; when a statement is susceptible of varying interpretations, at least one of which is nonthreatening, the proper standard to apply is whether an objective listener would readily interpret the statement as a true threat, nothing less is sufficient to safeguard the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.
Practice Areas: Constitutional Law
To functionally preserve a claim, precedent demonstrates that although a party need not use the term of art applicable to the claim, or cite to a particular statutory provision or rule of practice, he must have argued the underlying principles or rules before the trial court to obtain appellate review.
The bright line rule articulated in the Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Parenteau v. Devita, that "a judgment on the merits is final for purposes of appeal even though the recoverability or amount of attorney's fees for the litigation remains to be determined," applies in the context of common-law punitive damages, which are limited under Connecticut law to litigation expenses, such as attorney fees less taxable costs and the Appellate Court's 1998 decision in Lord v. Mansfield was overruled, holding that a judgment is not final for purposes of appeal under Connecticut General Statutes §52-263, when the trial court has awarded, but not yet determined the amount of common law punitive damages.
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.
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.