Plaintiff Carried His "Probable Cause" Burden To Obtain Prejudgment Remedy
Ng, a taxi-cab driver, sued Barbosa, alleging that Barbosa struck him in the face, causing injuries.
FST CV 17 5016470 S
Ng, a taxi-cab driver, sued Barbosa, alleging that Barbosa struck him in the face, causing injuries.
FST CV 17 5016470 S
Schkeeper was driving home when she saw an insect inside her car, near the windshield. As she opened the window to let the insect out, she collided with a car driven by Buckeridge, coming from the opposite direction.
KNL CV 16 6025707-S
A retail business owner who sustained damages resulting from a fire that started in an adjacent store failed as a matter of law to establish that his losses resulted from negligence of either the property owner or the owner of the adjacent business.
The plaintiff's lack of credibility undermined her claim of having been injured due to a defect in a city sidewalk.
Plaintiff's expert in this medical malpractice case involving a wrongful death was not required to eliminate all other credible causes for the decedent's fatal cancer aside from the defendant's conduct.
Defendant treating physicians who have not been designated as expert witnesses may not be required to provide expert opinions regarding causation and standard of care.
No showing of unusual hardship was required in order for homeowners in a flood zone to qualify for variances to rebuild their home to make it FEMA-compliant.
The defendant tenant was liable for damages to a rental property where he failed to notify his landlords of his absence or refill the oil supply, which caused a broken pipe and resulting water damage.
A landlord who evicted a tenant under false pretenses and discarded his possessions was liable to the tenant for forcible entry and retainer, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
An unemployment compensation claimant who had not made herself available for, nor had sought, full-time employment was not eligible for a waiver of liability for overpayments she had received.
KNL CV 16-5015198-S
Plaintiff homeowners adequately stated claims that defendant insurer's refusal to pay damages resulting from an ice dam at their home was actionable as bad faith, negligence, and unfair and deceptive practice in insurance.
UWY CV 166030267
Plaintiff did not sufficiently plead a cause of action for unjust enrichment where he failed to prove more than an incorporation of the allegations in his breach of contract count.
Ambiguities in a partnership agreement precluded summary judgment on any of three claims that relied on the language of that agreement.
The plaintiffs' withdrawal of prior similar litigation had no preclusive effect. The trial court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions for summary judgment.
Defendant failed to disprove personal jurisdiction where the evidence established that, despite her temporary absence from her Connecticut home, defendant had no plans to permanently leave the home.
A California defendant who had never lived in or visited Connecticut was not subject to personal jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute in the absence of any admissible evidence that he had transacted any business in Connecticut.
Mirmina moved to compel Genpact to respond to interrogatories and requests for documents.
Roy filed a motion to seal her sentencing memorandum, and separately filed her sentencing memorandum and related attachments under seal.
Reilly, a film-maker making a film about Joseph Ganim, the current mayor of Bridgeport, sought disclosure from the FBI and DOJ of wiretap recordings made in connection with the prior investigation and prosecution of Ganim that resulted in the conviction of Ganim after a jury trial in 2003.
In June 2013, Beckford filed a complaint against Bayview in the bankruptcy court, alleging that, by securitizing his mortgage, Bayview and various other parties had committed fraud.
In assessing a challenge to a common interest ownership association's discretionary determination regarding the installation of a fence on a lot owner's property, the trial court erred in applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than determining the reasonableness of the association's decision.
The defendants' failure to support a requested jury instruction with specific evidence in the record, statutes, and case law defeated their claim on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing the requested instruction.
The plaintiff failed to show that her former husband deliberately misled her as to the value of his pension.
A police officer's conduct in calling out to and walking towards a suspect did not constitute a seizure.
The trial court could reasonably find one portion of a detective's testimony sufficient to defeat defendant's motion to suppress, while declining to rely on a different portion.
Homeowners failed to prove that their lender's agent fraudulently misstated their income on their loan application.
An arrangement tying the purchase of lots in a unique and highly sought after development to the use of specified brokerage services constituted an illegal tying arrangement.
A claimant who forgot to attend formal hearing was entitled to have his claim reinstated.
Mastropietro, Walker, and Salerno
A tribal officer's use of force was not excessive. The court entered judgment in favor of the Tribe.
A self-represented plaintiff's justifiable reliance on defendants' instructions as to what documentation she needed to submit constituted exceptional circumstances warranting the granting of an extension of time to supplement the record.
An ambiguous plea agreement had to be construed in the defendant's favor.
The individual defendant, who entered into a contract with plaintiff purportedly as an agent for a company he intended to form, was a party to the original agreement under the "broker rule" and thus liable for a real estate commission fee.
Conditions on the practice of law, including continuing supervision and mental health treatment, were imposed on an attorney who was found to have recently neglected his duties to five different clients.
A legal malpractice suit founded on an allegation that the attorney sued the wrong defendants was not tolled by the continuous representation doctrine.
Plaintiff, an accused polluter, violated a no-voluntary-payment provision of applicable insurance policies when, under pressure from state environmental protection authorities, he applied for a "Stewardship Permit" without first notifying defendant, the insurer, of potential claims for wrongfully discharging chemical products into the environment.
Connecticut General Statutes § 22a-44(b) provided the plaintiff landowners with standing to file this action against defendants, owners of an abutting property, wherein they claimed defendants failed to comply with the conditions of their inland wetlands permit.
An arbitrator did not exceed his powers in ordering the state to take the actions necessary to restore an employee to the position he held prior to suspension.
Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies barred their claims against a neighboring school district based on the allegedly excessive fees charged for out-of-district students to attend two magnet schools in that district.
A university employee terminated for alleged misconduct was entitled to discovery regarding allegations of similar misconduct against other employees, and the discipline imposed in those cases.
The plaintiff subcontractor sufficiently alleged claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against the entity that benefited from its labor despite the absence of claims that plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law.
Defendant could not maintain a special defense of setoff against plaintiff's claims to recover absconded funds based upon purported loans where defendant did not sufficiently allege facts to establish mutuality.
An employee demonstrated probable cause that he would prevail on his claim of monies due under an oral employment contract.
The 30-day savings provision in General Statutes § 52-593a applied to save plaintiff's action where a first marshal was unable to effectuate service, but a second marshal made proper service upon defendant within 30 days of receiving plaintiff's papers.
Absent any record indication of an agreement requiring task-related accountability, a client was unable to show that his attorney was not entitled to payment for researching issues of New York law.
Mehedi sued Memry for physical injuries he alleged sustained during an assignment as a temporary employee, invoking diversity jurisdiction as the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Lego alleging that, during discovery, it learned about the formation of a new company (Rubicon) that participated in the allegedly infringing activities, and that two individuals, in their capacity as officers and directors of the allegedly infringing entities, directed the allegedly infringing activities.
Moore worked for the affirmative action unit at the Department of Corrections.
Edelstein sued his former employer, alleging that it failed to pay him in violation of federal and state wage laws.
Ten months after filing its answer, and two months before the close of discovery, Winklevoss moved to amend its answer to assert an affirmative defense based upon after-acquired evidence, arguing that it learned of certain conduct by Kuo during discovery that might have led to her termination.
Total Wine, which sells beer and wine, sued two Connecticut officials, alleging that certain state statutory and regulatory provisions governing the distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages were preempted by federal antitrust law.
The plaintiffs' appeal from a probate court decree was properly dismissed as untimely.
Defendant failed to prove fraud so as to warrant the reopening of her dissolution case.
The evidence supported the habeas court's finding that the petitioner was adequately advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea.
The transfer of a prison inmate to restrictive housing was not shown to be retaliatory.
In the absence of any order directing the Second Injury Fund to pay any claim, its appeal from an order finding it potentially liable was unripe for appellate review.
Mastropietro, Engel, and Dilzer
A school principal was not entitled to qualified immunity as to a parent's claim that the principal violated the parent's First Amendment rights by banning the parent from off-campus school events and from events on school property that were open to the public.
While the mother's appeal arising out of a neglect proceeding was pending in the Connecticut appellate courts, the mother complained that the father, who lived in North Carolina with the minor child, was depriving her of visitation, and asked the Connecticut trial court to modify the order.
Reyes paid two men to set fire to certain real property, and had one of the men set fire to a vehicle, because he was involved in disputes with their owners.
Where both parties' appraisal experts demonstrated partiality in favor of the party who commissioned their report, the Superior Court found that the Town of East Haven's appraiser overvalued the subject property.
The defendant property owner could not be held liable in negligence for injuries plaintiff suffered in a trip and fall accident on a walkway where it was clear that either the property owner's tenant or a subtenant possessed and/or controlled the walkway.
The Freedom of Information Commission erroneously construed General Statutes § 10-10a to allow any member of the public to request information that exists only within a student database.
Bankruptcy debtors had standing to pursue a personal injury cause of action that had belonged to the trustee of the bankruptcy estate, but for a potential exemption from the bankruptcy action.
D.N. FST CV 11 6009564 S
A snow removal company established that it was responsible for snow removal from the parking areas of an apartment complex only, and was not responsible for injuries sustained by a tenant when she fell on an icy walkway leading to her apartment.
Parents could not be held liable for injuries inflicted on a police officer by their mentally disturbed adult son.
Both plaintiff's notice of claim and her evidence were insufficient to support her claim against the state for a defective condition of a state road.
A physician's opinion letter was insufficient to support plaintiff's malpractice claims against nurses.
Plaintiff failed to support his claim that a trial judge who had ruled against him in the past was biased against him.
Evidence was sufficient to support a jury's verdict, and an inconsistency between an initial version of jury interrogatory responses and the trial court's jury instructions did not support setting aside the verdict.
Plaintiff's lawsuit arising from a complaint made to the State Election Enforcement Commission sufficiently alleged a claim for vexatious suit but failed to plead a claim for malicious prosecution in the absence of a criminal proceeding.
A borrower was entitled to damages and statutory fees and costs following that a mortgage lender breached the contract, attempted to charge a usurious interest rate, breached fiduciary and/or trust obligations, and engaged in unfair and deceptive practices.
The Superior Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter in which plaintiff sought to enjoin the State from distributing settlement funds as there was no allegation that the State statutorily waived its sovereign immunity, acted unconstitutionally or engaged in wrongful acts.
The claims plaintiff asserted in this lawsuit regarding the alleged inadequacies of certain building inspections, whether characterized as negligence or recklessness, were not brought within the maximum three-year period authorized by General Statutes § 52-577.
Plaintiff was entitled to have a jury resolve her claim for front and back pay in this employment discrimination since her claim sought to recover damages, not equitable relief.
The Superior Court refused to disturb an arbitration award which found that petitioners committed two violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and awarded respondents nominal damages as well as $12,000 in attorney fees.
The plaintiffs filed a FOIA request, seeking documents relating to the adjudication of disability claims from alleged water contamination at Camp Lejeune.
The court previously awarded EES's motion for default judgment and reasonable attorneys' fees.
After a jury awarded Lastonia Leviston $5 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages in her suit against Jackson, Jackson filed for bankruptcy protection.
The record supported the trial court's finding that plaintiff's use of a disputed parcel of property was with the permission of the owners, and thus did not give rise to either a prescriptive easement or acquisition of title by adverse possession.
The defendant's involuntary and unanticipated loss of employment relieved him of being found in contempt for his inability to pay alimony and constituted a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a reduction in his alimony obligation.
A mortgagor was not entitled to discharge of his mortgage until he had remained in undisturbed possession of the subject property for six years from the maturity date set forth in the mortgage, without regard to the mortgagee's decision to accelerate the underlying debt.
The evidence at trial was sufficient to support the trial court's finding regarding the assignment of a loan.
The subcontractors on a construction job were in privity with the general contractor for purposes of any claims against them for defective work.
The Raymond Loubier irrevocable trust, another irrevocable trust and a contingent trust beneficiary sued Noella Loubier for breach of fiduciary duty.
Statutory aggrievement does not apply to appeals from historic district commission decisions.
The brevity of the state's delay in executing an arrest warrant does not excuse, as a matter of law, the state's failure to execute the warrant prior to expiration of the relevant statute of limitations.
Predatory lending was not recognizable as an independent special defense to foreclosure.
The Superior Court agreed with plaintiff's assertion that there were genuine issues of material fact as to which party, the City of Hartford or the Metropolitan District Commission, was responsible for keeping the roadway intersection area where she fell safe and in repair.
The facts set forth in three prior cases provided defendant attorneys with a reasonable basis to prosecute an underlying action against plaintiff.
The ambiguous notice provisions of the parties' lease agreement caused the court to construe the terms of the lease against the landlord and grant tenant the longest notice period possible.
Particularity was not required in a plaintiff's allegations of a "general business practice" for the purpose of stating a legally sufficient claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The plaintiff insurer had no duty to defend and/or indemnify the insured sellers of a home where they allegedly misrepresented the condition of the home to buyers but their alleged conduct did not inflict damage to the property.
While Mother lived with three of her children without intervention by the Department of Children and Families, this factor did not outweigh her noncompliance with her reunification steps.
Plaintiff's claim alleging defendant's violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act could not lie where the ultimate injury for which he sought redress occurred within the context of his employment relationship with defendant.
No reasonable fact finder could conclude from the evidence that plaintiff's employer refused a reasonable request to accommodate his irritable bowel syndrome and fired him from his position because he was disabled.
Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies barred their claims for declaratory relief against the State Board of Education and Commissioner of Education.
On remand following affirmance of judgment in favor of defendant in a breach of contract dispute, defendant presented sufficient evidence of damages to warrant a lost profits damages award in a specific amount.
X04 HHD CV 06-5009720-S
The prior pending action doctrine warranted dismissal of an action that was virtually identical to a previously filed and still pending action involving the same parties and the same issues.
An unlicensed contractor who failed to perform home remodeling work per terms of a written contract after receiving sunstantial payments in advance, and who failed to answer a complaint, was ordered to pay actual, consequential and punitive damages to the aggrieved homeowner.
Plaintiff failed to set forth a sufficient basis for the court to extend her appeal period or to open or vacate a judgment against her where she chose to prioritize other matters and her claim of new evidence was vague and unsubstantiated.
Plaintiff properly brought her claim for an estate accounting before the Superior Court since this court and the Probate Court exercise concurrent jurisdiction over accountings by persons acting under powers of attorney.
Grenier, as administrator, sued Stamford Hospital and related health care providers, alleging that they injured, and ultimately killed, Laura Sheehan.
Robinson, proceeding pro se, sued the DMV, her former employer, for race discrimination and retaliation.
Hauser sued his former employer (General Cable) for violating the Family & Medical Leave Act.
After he was accused of stealing food by a cafeteria worker, Jackson's child (ZJ) was tackled, slammed to the ground and tasered by high school officers.
Kennedy sued his former employer (Supreme), alleging that it violated federal law by terminating his employment because he refused to drive trucks that were loaded with mulch that was over the federal legal weight limit.
CTI sought to depose GEOMC's CEO, Young Lim, and an executive vice president, Seung B. Oh. GEOMC produced Oh as its Rule 30(b)(6) witness, and offered to make Lim available if Oh was unable to address any topics.
The trial court's findings lacked the specificity needed to support its conclusion that an action was both brought entirely without color and in bad faith.
The so-called American rule did not bar an award of compensatory damages for attorney fees incurred by the plaintiff in prior litigation necessitated by the defendant's negligence.
The evidence supported a finding that the defendant broke his infant's leg. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.
A city could be held liable as "principal employer" for injuries sustained by a subcontractor's employee while performing maintenance on a city-owned building.
Mastropietro, Engel, and Dilzer
A plaintiff's action for malicious prosecution accrued when all charges against him were dismissed.
The assets in a QTIP marital deduction trust were properly included in the beneficiary's estate for state estate tax purposes upon the beneficiary's death.
The defendant violated the restrictive covenants on her property by destroying conservation lands.
Defense counsel could not be deemed ineffective for acquiescing to a defendant's refusal to allow the presentation of available mitigating evidence.
The plaintiff condominium association's lawsuit against the property developer was not premature where the common elements of the property, which were the subject of this suit, had already been built and turned over to condominium residents for their use.
Plaintiffs' claims regarding their Subaru vehicles were product liability claims under the Connecticut Product Liability Act and, thus, were subsumed by the act.
Plaintiff was not required to submit an expert letter and certificate of good faith in her action against a nursing home and related parties where her claims arising from a collision with another facility resident sounded in negligence, not medical malpractice.
The wrongful conduct rule did not bar plaintiffs from seeking redress against their former attorneys for alleged malpractice where there were material issues of fact regarding plaintiffs' alleged reliance on defendants' advice and their subsequent wrongful conduct.
A plaintiff who filed suit in 2015 failed to establish eligibility for tolling under the continuous representation doctrine when he had no further interaction with his attorneys after 2005.
Plaintiff could not maintain a legal malpractice claim against defendant, the mediator of a marital dispute, since there was no attorney-client relationship between the parties.
The City of Derby Planning & Zoning Commission fully vetted a site plan and application for the construction of an animal hospital and elicited ample evidence to support its approval of that application.
Departing from the majority, the Superior Court held that an insurer providing motorist coverage for the liability of an unidentified motorist is within the class of persons subject to suit by apportionment complaint pursuant to General Statutes § 52-102b.
Defendant failed to demonstrate that the trial judge's involvement in a prior criminal matter or her prior decisions in this family law matter, which were unfavorable to him, gave reason to question the judge's impartiality.
An expert witness's unavailability for deposition warranted exclusion of his affidavit.
Where plaintiff failed to accomplish proper service of an apportionment complaint in accordance with Practice Book § 10-12(c) and 10-13, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the apportionment defendant.
Plaintiffs' complaint, which contained jargon, catch phrases and "talismanic language" associated with conduct prohibited by antitrust laws, was not legally sufficient to plead an antitrust injury under the Connecticut Antitrust Act.
Questions of whether an insurer should provide coverage for snow removal and related damage needed to be left for the jury.
An award of attorney fees was not a "judgment" for purposes of awarding post-judgment interest.
The plaintiff's claim that foreclosure proceedings violated federal law failed to allege any viable basis for federal jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs failed to show that a banking institution either disregarded a credit report dispute or unlawfully accessed the plaintiffs' credit report.
The distraction caused by a bystander's presence during an arrest did not constitute probable cause to arrest the bystander for interference.
The plaintiff filed a motion for fees that failed to comply with the court's directives.
Theodore sued Lifeline, alleging that its home medical alert system failed to operate as promised, resulting in her mother's death.
A fire destroyed a room in Riley's house containing family mementos and photographs, and caused smoke damage to other portions of the house.
A part of their divorce, the parties were to equally share in child care expenses.
Evans joined a start-up company as its sole salesperson, on a commission basis.
Brunoli (general contractor) entered into a contract to construct a building. It retained SunTech as a glass subcontractor on the project.
James and John Doe sued Rackliffe, alleging that he sexually abused them when they were minors.
Claimant should have been afforded the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the trial commissioner's finding that claimant's cigarette smoking was the primary cause of his lung disease.
Mastropietro, Salerno, and Morelli
The claimant needed to submit evidence at trial in support of his contention that respondent's expert's evaluation of his impairment was flawed.
Mastropietro, Walker, and Salerno
Lima pled guilty to larceny. During the plea canvass, Lima answered yes when the trial court asked him if he had discussed his case and the plea with his attorney.
In September 2009, while she had a bankruptcy action pending, Gladstein filed suit against several defendants.
Davis, the administratrix of the Estate of Darin Robinson, sued Dube and his employers, alleging that they were liable for Robinson's death, which occurred after Dube's tractor-trailer hit Robinson's vehicle.
KNL CV 15-6028181 S
Funk was parked outside a diner. As he started his vehicle, he mistakenly shifted into drive, as he exited the vehicle.
While the Town of Newtown owed the road on which plaintiff fell, there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant property owner possessed and controlled the roadway.
Plaintiff's "newly discovered" evidence regarding air samples and the defendant corporation's membership in a plastics society did not support a new trial in this asbestos-related personal injury action.
Plaintiffs' sexual abuse claims fell outside the scope of foreseeable risk under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §302B where the defendants did not know the plaintiffs existed and where their relationships with an allegedly abusive priest did not constitute priest-parishioner relationships.
The litigation of certain claims in plaintiff's complaint, which alleged that a Catholic priest sexually assaulted him, would impermissibly entangle the court in matters of discipline, faith, internal organization or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law.
For PJR purposes, vicarious liability was established where a driver/business owner was at fault in a traffic accident that resulted in injuries and where, at the time, he was uncertain as to whether he would return to work or drive home.
Joining the minority view, the court denied the defendant insurance carrier's motion to strike an apportionment complaint even though plaintiffs did not name the carrier as a defendant in the underlying case.
A legal malpractice plaintiff failed to establish, as a matter of law, that her attorney's lack of care and skill was so obvious and gross as to obviate any need to present expert testimony to counter the defendant's assertion, on summary judgment motion, that she failed to establish the essential elements of a prima facie case.
The subject property conveyances were not part of an illegal subdivision where the party who divided the property did not do so for the purpose of sale or building development.
Dubinsky claimed that, after Reich was appointed by the court as guardian ad litem for Reich's minor child, as part of divorce proceedings between Reich and his ex-wife, Reich was biased against him, breached the applicable standard of care, and acted in a negligent manner.
FBT CV16 6056320
While there were unexplained differences between defendant's original loan application and his subsequent 2005 note and mortgage, the defendant ratified the 2005 mortgage transaction by executing a 2009 modification agreement.
Notwithstanding a defendant's nominal ownership of a dog, record evidence and a prior small claims court ruling established plaintiff's actual ownership.
Plaintiffs' contracts with the defendant did not bar their claims of violations of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act where such claims were premised upon allegedly negligent misrepresentations, not breach of contract.
Connecticut General Statutes applied to give the court jurisdiction over defendant where he allegedly made misrepresentations in state in order to induce the parties to transfer funds.
The requirement that the Department of Social Services issue a preliminary audit report within 60 days after concluding the relevant audit was intended to be directory only.
There were triable issues of fact regarding the extent to which an insurer was prejudiced by its insured's delay in notifying it of a potential claim.
The defendant's agreement to arbitrate all claims included claims involving the plaintiff's affiliates.
The defendant's failure to file any responsive pleadings in a wrongful death action, while he also faced criminal charges arising from the same incident, was not excused by his purported claim of privilege against self-incrimination.
Where there has been no prior subdivision, a map cannot constitute a "resubdivision." The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court judgment.
Plaintiff could not challenge municipal enforcement action that had not yet occurred.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a child sexual assault victim's videotaped forensic interview as a prior consistent statement after the defendant challenged her credibility at trial.
The imposition of multiple enhanced sentencing classifications based on same prior felony offense did not violate double jeopardy.
The record failed to support the defendant's contention that counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea.
A suspect's interview at an outdoor location was not custodial. The Appellate Court affirmed a judgment of conviction.
Police officers were entitled to governmental immunity as to an arrestee's claims of negligence against them.
The claimant's medical condition did not preclude compensation for a work-related injury.
Mastropietro, Engel and Mlynarczyk
The Tribal Court found that it had the power to grant a lender's request for auction where the judgment debt exceeds the fair market value of the property.
After Phillips' mother passed away, she moved into her mother's apartment and kept her mother's dog.
Plaintiff's proposed amendments to her complaint involving a slip-and-fall accident related back to her original negligence complaint where they arose out of a single set of facts.
Plaintiff could not rely on General Statutes § 52-593, the "wrong defendant" statute, to bring this untimely negligence action against the defendants where he knew of their potential liability but failed to plead over against them in his original lawsuit.
The plaintiff's malpractice action was not timely filed within three years of the latest date on which the defendant represented him as counsel.
The zoning board did not act improperly in accepting the architectural data contained in the record and plaintiff failed to undermine the board's decision by attacking the factual basis of the decision with contrary acts without giving the board an opportunity to evaluate those facts.
The record supported city zoning officials' denial of the plaintiffs' application to open a full service restaurant and bar.
The plaintiff union, which represented employees of the Town of Wallingford, was not entitled to the relief sought in its application to vacate an unfavorable arbitration award since the court could not review an arbitration award for mere errors of law.
An insured alleged facts sufficient to support claims of bad faith and CUTPA violation against his insurer.
Defendants' discretionary act immunity special defense was inapplicable to plaintiffs' nuisance claims and, therefore, legally insufficient because a municipality's liability for nuisance does not rest on whether the act is discretionary or ministerial.
The issuing court was entitled to draw the reasonable inference from a witness's observations that defendant was in fact in possession of child pornography sufficient to justify a search and seizure warrant.
Plaintiff was not the prevailing party in a mortgage foreclosure action where the action was withdrawn after she admitted the underlying debt and the parties restructured the debt through a settlement agreement.
The plaintiff earned a contingency fee provided for in the parties' contract for tax consulting services where the firm achieved a substantial tax reduction on defendant's behalf.
The defendant limited partnership and its general partner did not breach the terms of the operative limited partnership agreement or a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs by refusing to redeem their units in the partnership until it obtained consent from its lender.
Plaintiffs' numerous state-law and federal claims against an airline arising from an incident during boarding of international flight were all precluded by the Montreal Convention and the federal Airline Deregulation Act.
An individual plaintiff who brought wages-and-hours claims against a New York defendant could depose defendant in Connecticut rather than New York.
Margolis, U.S.M. J.
A franchisor was entitled to enforcement of a provision in the agreement requiring that disputes be resolved by arbitration, with all hearings in Connecticut, but was not entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred in pursuing its motion to compel arbitration.
Money found in defendant's clothing and drugs found in room where arrested were admissible, but not other items found after resident gave search consent only after being threatened with arrest.
In February 2015, Heinonen sued defendants for real estate fraud. Heinonen alleged that he had transferred his interest in the premises to his three children by means of a trust instrument in 2007.
The defendants failed to provide any support for their claim that their client's $500 loan payment for the purchase of a new car, made from the settlement proceeds in a personal injury action, was connected to the personal injury action so as to preclude attachment by the state to satisfy a lien.
After their marriage dissolved, Andrew LeSueur and Janine LeSueur entered into a separation agreement that provided, among other things, for alimony and child support (for two minor children).
DeEsso sued Litzie, alleging that Litzie injured DeEsso during a fight. DeEsso claimed he suffered economic damages totaling $61,483.34, which were unchallenged by Litzie, as well as $297,360 in noneconomic damages attributable to past and future pain and suffering.
The jury's apparent rejection of certain portions of a victim's testimony did not preclude it from finding the remaining portions sufficiently credible to support one of three charges against the defendant.
The prosecutor's improper comments during closing arguments did not deprive the defendant of due process.
The defendant's failure to address a key issue in his main brief on appeal precluded appellate review.
The plaintiff produced sufficient evidence of her claims of malfeasance to shift the burden of proof to the defendant to prove his own fair dealing; the trial court committed fundamental error in placing the burden of proof as to this issue on the plaintiff.
Jonas sued his condominium association in 2008, 2009 and 2010, alleging it failed to repair and maintain his unit's heating system.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting an inherently inconsistent verdict and directing the jury to continue its deliberations.
In 2014, an individual filed a bar complaint against Elder, alleging that he engaged in professional misconduct in 2004.
Two police officers suspected that Donald was involved in a recent robbery. They arranged to meet Donald in a public park to discuss an outstanding warrant.
Pease sued the hospital for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of medical malpractice.
Various state employees' negligence did not rise to the level of wantonness, recklessness, or maliciousness so as to give rise to an exception to sovereign immunity.
The defendant landowner had constructive notice of the dimensions of the parcel originally conveyed to plaintiff, his neighbor, where plaintiff's original deed established its chain of title first.
The defendant utility was not liable for the decedent's unforeseeable death resulting from her use of charcoal in an enclosed area of her apartment after power was knocked out.
Where plaintiff's complaint alleged he was injured on a footbridge on defendants' golf course, the court could not find as a matter of law that plaintiff's claims fell under the highway defect statute.
Defendant's employee was not acting within the scope of any presumptive agency relationship when she drove across a lawn on her way home and struck a gas tank valve.
While the jury found that the defendant driver was negligent, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that defendant's negligence did not cause the plaintiff pedestrian's alleged injuries.
The plaintiff failed to show actionable injury arising from her unpleasant interactions with town officials.
The bests interests of the parties' minor child, who suffers from anxiety and school phobia, were not served by granting father final decision-making authority regarding the child's education.
Plaintiff's amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to show that her termination violated a public policy against fraud where she admitted violating a company benefits policy for over 10 years.
A lender could not hold a borrower's wife liable for the mortgage note executed by her husband.
The evidence was insufficient to determine the plaintiff corporation's stock ownership where it was not clear whether the board properly convened a special meeting directing the issuance of additional stock.
A debtor abused the law in setting up an elaborate network of LLCs in order to shield his assets from attachment to satisfy his personal debt.
A limited liability corporation was not liable for its sole member's breach of an agreement entered into in her personal capacity.
While plaintiff knew or should have known that the mechanic's lien it filed against defendant's property was invalid, plaintiff did not use unreasonable force or extortionate methods.
The defendant limited liability company could not rely on its own failure to comply with the statutory requirement to maintain an agent for service of process to claim lack of notice of plaintiff's lawsuit.
Kwong filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code.
Law of the case doctrine properly applied to the striking of substitute counterclaims.
A party's failure to release a lis pendens was a single act for purposes of the applicable statute of limitations, and not a continuing course of conduct.
A nurse with no recent practical experience did not qualify as an expert on the standard of care for a medical procedure.
Defendant's amendment of previously filed tax forms substantially complied with parties' agreement that he "withdraw" the previously filed forms.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when ordering a time limited or contingent alimony order upon the sale of plaintiff's business.
Because the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity, the court lacked jurisdiction and should have dismissed the case.
A third party's audit report was properly admitted at trial under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
A permanent and visible scar caused by a knife wound was sufficient to support a finding that the wound constituted a serious physical injury.
Defendant executed and delivered a note in the amount of $900,000 to non-party Washington Mutual Bank, plaintiff's predecessor in interest, plus a mortgage deed secured by his property.
The workers' compensation commissioner properly attributed the claimant's illness to heart disease. The Compensation Review Board affirmed the commissioner's findings and award.
Mastropietro, Walker, and Salerno
Lee was convicted of conspiracy to make a false statement and conspiracy to fabricate physical evidence, arising from a single unlawful agreement.
Stated precedent established that, through a 2008 purchase and assumption agreement, Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. conveyed all of its assets to J.P. Morgan, N.A. and, thus, J.P, Morgan had standing to pursue a foreclosure claim against the plaintiff.
The moving defendants failed to establish a basis for their motion to open a default judgment where they offered no viable defense to the underlying foreclosure action.
There were material issues of fact as to whether the sidewalk on which the plaintiff allegedly fell while walking to a town hall came within the purview of the highway defect statute.
The defendant landscaper contracted with a condominium complex to provide only aesthetic landscaping services and, therefore, did not owe a duty to the plaintiff resident to protect her from injuries caused by wasps on the property.
A cab company and its driver owed a passenger no duty to protect her from the unforeseeable criminal conduct of third parties who assaulted her in the cab.
The ignition of illegal fireworks on residential property constituted an ultrahazardous activity.
There was insufficient evidence of the plaintiff police officer's comparative negligence where he was struck and injured by a fellow police officer who backed up his car suddenly and without warning.
Plaintiff was unable to present evidence in support of her claims that an employer was liable to her for a car accident involving on of its employees.
The evidence raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether plaintiff's termination was retaliatory or merely the result of the application of employer's attendance policy.
While the jury's initial verdict in this personal injury suit granted plaintiffs economic damages, the evidence at trial provided a rational basis for the jury's final verdict of no economic damages.
Plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest, at 10 percent per year, where the court sought to compensate plaintiff for money due under the terms of a contract but wrongfully detained by defendants.
The plaintiff's failure to make payment in a timely fashion defeated his claim for specific performance of a purchase agreement.
Plaintiff failed to show that roofing company's noncompliance with the statutory requirement that it enter into a written contract was the proximate cause of plaintiff's damages.
The statute of repose in General Statute § 52-592 did not save plaintiffs' claims since they were filed more than one year after the court denied plaintiffs' motion to open a judgment of dismissal.
Service of process upon a person lacking any authority to accept service defeated the service.
Under the "close nexus test" applied by the Second Circuit, the bankruptcy court did not have exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff's post-confirmation claim for a commission due under a real estate listing agreement.
Dwinnell filed suit under ERISA, challenging the denial of her claim for long term disability benefits.
The court denied Midsun's motion for a protective order and indicated its willingness to award CSL its fees in responding to the motion.
Doctor's Associates, Inc., the franchiser of Subway sandwich shops in the United States, entered into two franchise agreements with Rambir Nijjar.
Plaintiffs filing a putative class action were entitled to disclosure of their fellow employees' names and contact information.
A deponent failed to meet his burden of establishing facts sufficient to support his refusal to answer deposition questions based on his claim of clergy-penitent privilege.
Damages previously eliminated as duplicative could not be restored following appeal on unrelated issues.
A jury convicted Clark on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, thirteen counts of wire fraud, and six counts of money laundering.
Failure to Repay Supported Claims for Breach of Contract and Unjust Enrichment
In 1996, Barnes and the International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("UAW") settled a class action concerning the payment of medical benefits.
Despite change in residence of minor children, an upward modification of child support was appropriate under the guidelines.
Child support modification was appropriate, even absent a change of circumstances, when original order substantially deviated from the statutory guidelines.
The trial court conducted a reasonable inquiry into defense counsel's joint representation when determining no conflict of interest existed.
Sufficient evidence supported the court's finding that defendants breached the parties' agreement and properly awarded fees in association with such damage.
The Wilton Congregational Church sued Roche, alleging that it breached a contract by negligently installing a defective sprinkler system and that it made misrepresentations about the sprinkler system, and that this conduct violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The plaintiff's allegations regarding the defendants' alleged failure to pay death benefits did not satisfactorily allege that a contract existed.
The language of the parties' periodic release and waiver did not reflect a clear intent to waive the plaintiff subcontractor's right to file a mechanics' lien for work performed but for which plaintiff had not yet been paid.
The plaintiff, a corporate real estate developer, had standing to pursue this breach of contract action against the defendant subcontractors involved in a construction project where plaintiff had a specific, personal and legal interest in the action.
The court lacked authority to inquire further into plaintiff's dismissal from a church congregation after it determined that the dismissal was a valid expression of the corporate body of the church.
Paquin alleged that he was injured by exposure to asbestos-containing products.
Delsasso alleged that she was sexually harassed by two coworkers and that, after she complained to management, it retaliated against her by terminating her employment and defamed her by telling other employees she was terminated for theft.
Garcia alleged a law firm specializing in creditors' rights litigation violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act when it sent him a letter that did not provide him with sufficient detail about his debt.
Jacoby & Myers challenged the constitutionality of Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4, which restricts the ability of lawyers to share fees or enter into business relationships with non-lawyers, alleging that the rule violated the United States Constitution and should be enjoined.
A male member of the New Haven Police alleged that the department implemented a dress code policy that treated male and female officers differently by allowing female officers to dress in clothing that was appropriate for the weather.
Change of financial circumstances, beyond an inheritance, supported a modification of the parties' alimony award.
Sufficient evidence supported the commissioner's suspension of plaintiff's driver's license for failure to submit to chemical alcohol testing.
Sufficient evidence existed to support a jury's finding that the defendant was guilty of intentional manslaughter during an altercation.
Injuries sustained during a lunch break on public streets were compensable as occurring during the course of employment.
A §3664(j)(2) order was final and appealable as it conclusively determined appellant's entitlement to credit and the district court lacked authority to later vacate such order.
Maria G. sought to intervene in a parental rights proceeding on the basis that a foreign court had determined that she had a right to custody of the minor child.
On the first two days of his trial, Bush expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney. Bush then stated he wanted to represent himself and the court allowed him to do so.
A jury convicted Chyung of murder and manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in connection with the death of his wife.
The evidence established that the original plaintiff was in possession of the adjustable rate note at issue in this foreclosure action on the date the action was commenced.
Plaintiff's allegations against the defendant town arising from a slip and fall accident were barred by governmental immunity because the alleged negligence involved a discretionary act.
The evidence was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant bus company and its driver owed a duty to plaintiff, a student allegedly assaulted by fellow bus riders at her stop.
Termination of both mother's and father's parental rights was warranted in this case where neither parent had addressed their mental health, substance abuse and housing issues after their minor child had been adjudicated neglected.
Defendants could not be held liable under the Family Car Doctrine where the defendant car owner did not reside in the same household as the negligent driver, the defendant insured did not own the car and neither gave the driver permission to operate the vehicle.
After his mother's parental rights were terminated in August 2013, Danny was placed with his maternal aunt, where he bonded with her and her family.
Plaintiff was entitled to damages for the diminution in value of his motor vehicle after an accident with defendant where repairs did not restore the vehicle to its former full market value.
Detailed allegations in an amended complaint changing specific description of surgical tools allegedly misused by surgeon did not contradict the original claim that the surgeon failed to properly plan and to perform surgery through the use of instrumentality in his control, and therefore the amendments related back to the original complaint.
Class action state employees and retirees were not contractually entitled, by virtue of their participation in a group health care insurance plan, to share in proceeds following demutualization of the health care plan insurer.
Trial court's admission of improper police officer testimony regarding cell phone records and map was harmless error.
The defendant car dealership was not absolved of liability for injuries resulting from an accident during a vehicle test drive since it was not clear the dealership's agent surrendered the operation of its vehicle wholly to the potential purchaser.
Where defendants' predecessors secured a view easement over plaintiffs' land that was personal to them and did not run with the land, defendants were liable for the removal of plaintiffs' trees.
The evidence was sufficient to establish that the plaintiff real estate broker earned a commission by producing a ready, willing and able buyer to purchase defendant's property, even though the purchase offer contained two contingencies.
Plaintiff properly served defendant with foreclosure documents in accordance with the general rule that service of process upon an incarcerated person may be legally accomplished by service at his pre-incarceration residence.
Glatz alleged that she slipped and fell on a patch of ice on a public sidewalk that was owned, managed, maintained or controlled by the Town of Enfield.
CV 15 6063874 S
Briere alleged that she was injured when she slipped on accumulated ice on a public sidewalk.
CV 16 6055249S
Allen, an off-duty police officer, encountered a shoplifter in the mall parking lot who was being chased by mall security.
Williams alleged that the wheel of a shopping cart she was using fell off, causing her to suffer resulting injuries.
FBT CV-16-6054780 S
James Costello sued his former lawyer and law firm, alleging they committed malpractice in the handling of his case.
The defendant landlord, who knew that many large parties had been held in its rental property, owed a duty to plaintiff, a college student who was injured while attending a party at defendant's property.
There was insufficient evidence to support tenant's claim for damages where she interfered with landlord's efforts to repair the alleged safety violations in her rental unit.
The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's wrongful termination claims where he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies provided under the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
An award of lifetime alimony was still warranted in this case where the reasons for the underlying award, wife's bipolar disorder and mental health issues, still existed.
Defendant erred in filing special defenses challenging the sufficiency of certain allegations in plaintiffs' complaint, as the legal sufficiency of a claim cannot be raised in such a manner.
The Bridgeport Board of Zoning Appeals held that O&G was not authorized to engage in concrete crushing and stockpiling, despite the fact such activities had been conducted at its site in the past.
After several weeks of in-patient residential treatment for an eating disorder, UHC determined that E.R. was able to continue treatment at home, and denied coverage for further residential treatment.
After Sherwin-Williams terminated Polk's employment, he retained counsel who advised Sherwin-Williams that Polk believed he had been terminated in violation of the law.
Hallums sued the VA, alleging that it misdiagnosed him. The VA denied Hallums' administrative tort claim, and then denied his request for reconsideration on the basis that it was filed too late.
After its sheetrock subcontractor failed to timely perform on a construction project, Associated sought recovery under performance bonds issued by Handover.
Defendants who occupied a home for 13 years without making any use or occupancy payments, and without fulfilling their agreement to repay the plaintiff the funds he expended to purchase the house failed to show that the plaintiff committed fraud by retaking possession of the property.
Trial court did not clearly err in finding in a property owner's favor with regard to an assessment dispute.
The parties' oral agreement for the provision of home health care services was not enforceable.
Ample circumstantial evidence supported the defendant's conviction for stealing from his employer.
Sufficient evidence support a jury's finding that the defendant intended to assault the victim.
An injured firefighter's continued service as fire chief precluded a finding of total disability.
Mastropietro, Walker, and Salerno
"Tip credit" regulations do not apply to restaurant delivery drivers. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court judgment upholding the Labor Commissioner's decision.
Evidence supported award of damages to plaintiffs injured in a car accident.
Triable issues of material facts precluded summary judgment on a party's claims of vexatious litigation.
State law did not support a claim that the defendant conservator was liable to the plaintiff nursing facility for financial losses suffered as a result of defendant's failure to secure Medicaid payments for the care of his ward.
Where there were no written guidelines governing the defendant town's operation of its public pool, the plaintiff's negligence claims arising from a slip-and-fall accident at the pool implicated the town's discretionary acts.
Parents' failure to participate in reunification services warranted termination of parental rights.
The evidence established that it was not in minor child's best interests to maintain contact with his mother due to her mental health issues and substance abuse.
A magistrate erred in granting a deviation from the presumptive amount of child support in this case involving a shared physical custody arrangement where there was insufficient evidence to support such a deviation.
Plaintiff failed to show that her employer owed her an annual bonus. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Defendant failed to present reasonable cause to open the judgment against her and set aside her default.
The clear and convincing evidence of defendant's willful violations of a prior injunction limiting her parking options on a private street warranted sanctions.
Patchey was appointed as Heinemann's guardian by a Florida state court after it found that Heinemann was incompetent.
After Blackett took three separate medical leaves of absence following two injuries, Whole Foods filled his position and did not hire him for another position.
Bourne was the Board of Education's payroll supervisor. She alleged that, after she expressed concerns to the mayor about certain Board financial conduct that she believed was improper, her supervisor (Haynes), Board superintendent (Frechette) and the Board of Education retaliated against her in a variety of ways.
Laquer alleged that Priceline collected "taxes" on a rental vehicle he never picked up in San Francisco and that Priceline never refunded those taxes or remitted them to California.
Alnabulsi alleged that Midland erroneously placed a judgment lien on certain real property.
A third party's criminally reckless superseding conduct is a viable defense to a claim of negligence.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the primary physical custody of a couple's two minor children from the mother to the father after the mother's circumstances changed.
The record supported termination of the respondent's parent rights. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment.
The plaintiff failed to show that he was discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation.
A fellow perpetrator's out-of-court statements were properly admitted at the defendant's trial under the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest.
The plaintiff's failure to prove ownership of the goods in question defeated his claims of conversion and replevin.
An entity that was a trade name only could not initiate a legal action. The Appellate Court accordingly reversed the judgment below and remanded with directions to dismiss.
The claimant failed to show that advancements in medical science since 2010 would establish that his cognitive problems were the result of a concussion sustained at work.
Mastropietro, Salerno, and Engel
The trial commissioner did not err in giving more weight to the findings of the respondents' expert than to those of the claimant's expert.
Mastropietro, Walker, and Salerno
The claimant failed to show that her employer should be precluded from contesting her workers' compensation claim.
Mastropietro, Walker, and Salerno
Because an alien's removal is not punishment, it is not subject to Eighth Amendment proportionality analysis.
The defendant failed to establish error in the trial judge's denial of defendant's motion to recuse himself.
A homeowner did not act in bad faith for purposes of the Home Improvement Act by refusing to pay a contractor based on a genuine dispute about the amounts billed under the parties' contract.
A genuine issue of material fact as to when a civil preparedness emergency ended precluded a grant of judgment to the defendant, as a matter of law, based on its claim of immunity.
Plaintiffs failed to support their claim of adverse possession with allegations of specific acts indicative of ownership.
No good faith opinion letter was required to support a claim of ordinary negligence against a medical provider.
The plaintiff failed to show that her legal malpractice action was timely commenced within three years of when the defendant law firm last represented her.
Upon motion for a determination of appropriate expert witness fees, the court determined that a surgeon's deposition fee should be set at $750 per hour.
Public policy does not prohibit a private employer from requiring an employee to submit to a drug test based on a hair sample.
A town employee's complaint to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities regarding discrimination by a supervisor sufficed to also state claims against the town.
The plaintiff was not entitled to a temporary injunction where the only relief sought was financial and the plaintiff failed to show that it would suffer significant and irreversible damage if a temporary injunction were not granted.
The plaintiff's claim against defendants for the unpaid balance on a loan was offset by their claim for unpaid rent.
Disputed issues of material fact regarding the formation and terms of a contract precluded summary enforcement of a forum selection clause contained therein.
A hearing officer acted within his discretion in rejecting an unrebutted expert report as unpersuasive.
Substantial and reliable evidence supported a finding that the plaintiff was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The plaintiff was allegedly injured while using a circular power saw. He sued the manufacturer and asserted defective design and failure-to-warn theories.
A plaintiff injured in a car accident was limited to recovering compensatory damages only from the allegedly reckless driver's employer.
The plaintiffs alleged their homeowner's insurer improperly denied coverage for damage caused by cracks in their basement walls, despite the fact other courts had held "virtually identical" claims were covered.
A home day care operator's homeowner's policy did not provide coverage for injuries sustained when the parent of one of her charges was bitten by the homeowner's dog while retrieving his child from day care.
The defendants did not identify certain witnesses in their initial disclosures, but identified them during discovery.
A tractor-trailer driver alleged that Grocery Haulers, his former employer, terminated his employment after he refused an assignment that would have required him to drive in excess of the limits imposed by the Department of Transportation.
Ambiguities on a disability policy warranted remand. The court granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment and other relief.
The plaintiff failed to show that his unpleasant work situation was the result of gender discrimination.
Dalamagas and Leonidas owned equal shares in several companies. In November 2012, they entered into an Equity Purchase Agreement pursuant to which: (1) Leonidas purchased all of Dalamagas' interests; and (2) the parties agreed that Dalamagas would work as a consultant.
The trial court's orders in a marital dissolution action were unsupported by evidence. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment in part and remanded.
Ample evidence of defendant's guilty rendered any evidentiary error harmless. The Appellate Court affirmed a judgment of conviction.
Unduly suggestive identification procedures did not render the victims' identification of their assailant unreliable.
The defendant failed to provide any evidence to substantiate her claim that her debt to the plaintiff should be recalculated to reflect monies owed to the plaintiff under a mortgage insurance policy.
The transmission of a notice of employment decision by email does not constitute "personal service" for purposes of triggering the applicable 30-day appeal period.
An individual's independent business need not generate outside income in order to satisfy part C of the ABC test for determining whether that individual is an employee or an independent contractor.
Factual disputes precluded finding that decedent's marriage was either valid or invalid.
The terms of a lease precluded finding that a property owner owed a duty of care to persons visiting its leased premises. The court granted summary judgment to the property owner.
The court found no basis for excluding proposed expert testimony regarding the damage caused by defendant's failure to timely diagnose plaintiff's glaucoma.
Allegations of negligence in the dispensing of a prescription sounded in medical malpractice and thus required a certificate of good faith and an opinion letter from a similar health care provider.
Plaintiff's representation by the same law firm that represented defendant in an unrelated matter years before did not merit disqualification.
The parties' lease did not provide for the landlord to withhold a portion of the tenant's security deposit to pay the landlord's attorney fees incurred in commencing, but later withdrawing, eviction proceedings.
The plaintiff's prior successful challenge of a zoning commission decision did not collaterally estop a commission member from subsequently defending claims asserted against her individually.
The plaintiffs in an action alleging violations of a variance and of local zoning regulations were not, on the facts presented, required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing suit.
Homeowners' desire to expand their living space did not constitute the "exceptional difficulty and unusual hardship" required to support the granting of zoning variances.
Two insurers were equally liable for their share of a wrongful death settlement involving multiple insureds.
The defendants could be sued in their individual capacities for torts committed by the LLC in which they were principals.
The record contradicted the defendant's assertion that he never did business with the plaintiff.
Nicaraguan hotel owners' solicitation of business in Connecticut was, under the circumstances presented, sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
There were triable issues of material fact as to a railroad's liability for injuries suffered by a man who trespassed on railroad property.
Triable issues of material fact precluded a grant of summary judgment on the issue of whether an insured made a knowing and material misrepresentation about his health in filling out his application for life insurance.
A hospital employee's complaint about the alleged inappropriate conduct of a physician on a single occasion did not relate to a matter of public concern so as to trigger the protections afforded private employees under CGS §31-51q.
Triable issues of material fact precluded a grant of summary judgment to either plaintiff or defendant in two actions alleging the deceptive marketing of consumer products as "natural."
A defendant may not tender funds to settle an individual plaintiff's claim so as to prevent her from pursuing class claims.
A party's motion for reconsideration was utterly without merit. The court denied the motion.
The inclusion of fire coverage in an all-risk homeowners' policy does not convert that policy into a standard fire insurance policy for purposes of Connecticut law allowing 18 months for the filing of a lawsuit alleging an insurer's breach of such a policy.
Defendant's failure to object to the joinder of charges in the trial court precluded him from challenging joinder on appeal.
Convictions for both sexual assault and attempted sexual assault, arising out of the same incident, violated the prohibition against double jeopardy.
An eyewitness's spontaneous recognition of a perpetrator from a newspaper photograph was not the product of unduly suggestive private conduct so as to bar the admission of her identification at trial.
The defendant failed to establish her affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance.
The petitioner failed to show that defense counsel's performance was deficient.
The plaintiff's submission of the high bid in a bidding contest for a restaurant did not obligate the sellers to sell their restaurant to the plaintiff.
A judgment awarding attorney fees to plaintiff was not appealable until the trial court determined the amount of attorney fees to which the plaintiff was entitled.
A hedge fund's amendment of a limited partnership agreement to prevent a limited partner's withdrawal of funds breached their agreement.
The trial court's decision not to instruct the jury on consciousness of guilt was not plain error warranting reversal.
The evidence at defendant's trial was sufficient to prove that he did not hold a valid permit for the handgun found in his possession.
Defendant's inability to provide an address for a missing defense witness was fatal to his claim that the trial court's refusal to issue a material witness warrant deprived him of a fair trial.
The parties' dispute as to what caused plaintiff's injuries amounted to a genuine issue of material fact.
A business operator successfully rebutted a claim that it had control over the stairway leading to the second floor offices that it leased from the property owner.
Multiple facts contravened defendant's claim that it was plaintiff's employer and thus immune from suit for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on its premises.
The settlement between a stockholder and a public company regarding a proposed merger was fair, reasonable, and adequate.
An opinion letter from a clinical pathologist was insufficient to support a claim of malpractice that focused on the alleged errors of anatomic pathologists.
A genuine dispute as to when plaintiff discovered defendant's involvement in his medical treatment precluded a finding that plaintiff's claims against defendant were time-barred.
Attorney's conduct did not warrant reinstatement to the State Bar.
Party's mere belief that the services provided him would be different than they actually were was insufficient to state a claim for fraud.
Defendants' challenges to the sufficiency of breach of contract and civil theft claims were without merit.
A property owner was not liable to a contractor for work performed for the benefit of its tenant.
Plaintiffs' claims relating to an alleged defect in defendant's microwave oven warranted class certification.
No medical training is required to know that a patient must be prevented from falling off an operating table.
The plaintiff met its burden of showing that at least one allegation in a third-party complaint against possibly fell within the coverage of defendant's liability policy.
A post-doctoral fellow adequately alleged claims of sexual harassment against a medical school based on the conduct of its professor.
A police officer adequately alleged a causal connection between his report of misconduct against a fellow officer and adverse actions taken against him by two of his superiors.
The host of an online auction platform for the purchase and sale of medical supplies violated the Anti-Kickback Statute by charging a seller a fee calculated as a percentage of the proceeds from its sales.
Plaintiffs' and defendants' conflicting testimony precluded the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendants.
Insurers and insured litigated their respective liability for thousands of personal injury actions arising from exposure to asbestos.
Lavine, Beach, and Bear, Js.
Plaintiff's current action for partition was, in all significant respects, identical to his prior unsuccessful action for partition by sale, and was thus barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Plaintiff's notice of claim to the City of Stamford adequately identified the location of a manhole alleged to be defective and to have caused an automobile accident in which plaintiff was injured.
Defendant's acquittal as to the most serious of the charges against him undermined his claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to request a mistrial on grounds of juror bias.
Plaintiff was the holder of a mortgage with standing to foreclose. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court judgment granting strict foreclosure.