A court can find that pre-existing medical conditions and subsequent events, as opposed to the subject-motor vehicle accident, led to the plaintiff's surgery.
Evidence that a residence could not be built on property absent variances from setbacks can be sufficient to establish a hardship.
Connecticut General Statutes §54-193a allows the state to prosecute within 30 years of the date that the victim attains the age of majority or within five years of the date that the victim informs the police, whichever is earlier.
Practice Areas: Criminal Law
A defendant who pleads guilty, who enters a stipulation about the amount of a payment and then confirms her adherence to the stipulation may not be entitled to a hearing to decide the amount of the illegal transaction.
Evidence that partners in a hedge fund engaged in a conspiracy to fraudulently induce investors to invest can be sufficient to prove conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
To prevail on a claim that media publications violated 18 United States Code §1038, which provides a private cause of action for "any party incurring expenses incident to any emergency or investigative response," a plaintiff may be required to allege that he incurred an expense.
Practice Areas: Communications and Media Law
Plaintiffs who prove that a defendant wrongfully removed a case to District Court can be entitled to attorney fees.
In the 2008 decision of Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court explained that the opportunity "to question under oath a billing attorney who has submitted an affidavit in support of the requested fees" is "the most fair and efficient means of challenging those fees…" and here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant discovery regarding the plaintiff's claimed legal fees, given the extremely detailed fee affidavits provided, the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's attorney regarding those fees and the tortured history of this case, spanning more than a decade.
Marital properly ordinarily is valued as of the date of dissolution and while the trial court erred in valuing the marital home at the time of the remand rather than the dissolution, the error was harmless as the parties continued to own the home in equal shares.
Practice Areas: Family Law
The U.S. Supreme Court in the 1993 decision of Godinez v. Moran determined that the competency standard for both trial and to plead guilty is "whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."
The defendant had fair warning in 2011 that he could be prosecuted for possession of a narcotic substance based on visible cocaine left on a scale known to be used for weighing narcotics for sale and Connecticut General Statutes §21a-279(a) was not unconstitutionally vague as applied.
The court has subject matter jurisdiction over a motion to correct an illegal sentence in accordance with the rule from the 2010 Supreme Court case of State v. Parker, for claimed procedural violations that result in the sentencing judge allegedly relying on inaccurate information in sentencing.
The collective knowledge of law enforcement personnel could be imputed to an officer making an investigatory stop of a vehicle as he contacted the police dispatcher to confirm that the vehicle was indeed the subject of an earlier "be on the lookout" alert and he was authorized to make an investigatory stop.
The timing of an amendment to the information is central to determining whether it should be permitted, with a distinction drawn between amendments proposed before and during trial; a critical consideration is whether the amendment made during trial came before the defense presented its evidence.
Even if their driveway is located in another town, the location of a voter's dwelling unit can be used to decide their bona fide residence for purposes of voting.
A principal of a state contractor who donates money in violation of the state contractor ban may not qualify for a "safe harbor" in Connecticut General Statutes §9-612(f)(2)(C), if the donation is not refunded within 30 days.
The State Elections Enforcement Commission can fine registrars of voters who allegedly fail to count absentee ballots, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §§9-150b and 9-311.
Connecticut General Statutes §9-453k(d) does not require that a petitioning candidate receive notice of any names rejected on a petition page or require that the petitioner receive explanations for specific rejected signatures.
When a party-endorsed candidate withdraws her name from consideration less than 24 days before an election, the town clerk may not be required to immediately inform the party that their candidate withdrew.
Allegations that a voter's street name did not appear at the top of a page on the official voter registry list, and that election officials initially were unable to find the citizen's name, can be insufficient to prove a violation of elections laws.
A collective bargaining contract can require that employees called in to work outside regularly scheduled work hours receive a minimum of four hours of overtime.
Arbitrators can find that in the absence of fair warning, a fair investigation and progressive discipline, a city lacked just cause to demote.
Even if a sentence is substantively reasonable, the 2nd Circuit can remand to the district court, if the district court fails to explain in writing the court's rationale for a non-guidelines sentence, as required by 18 U.S.C. §3553(c)(2).
Practice Areas: Criminal Law
A court can find that a plaintiff who consciously approaches a dog, kneels, and raises her hands to pet a dog, after she was warned that the dog was blind in one eye and was not friendly, did not torment or tease the dog.
A plaintiff who seeks recovery pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §13a-149 must prove that the highway defect constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and a plaintiff who conceded that he was walking backward in the middle of the road may not prevail.
Allegations that an employee was subjected to arbitrary discipline; failed to receive the same training that was offered to other, similarly situated workers; received more work; was criticized as "worthless," "old," "unacceptable" and "dumb"; and was denied a medical leave of absence, can be insufficient to allege extreme and outrageous conduct.
The chief animal control officer, or any animal control officer or municipal or regional animal control officer can take custody of any animal, if reasonable cause exists to believe that the animal is in imminent harm and is neglected or cruelly treated, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §22-329a(a).
Practice Areas: Personal Property
An employee's status as an "at-will" employee can change, if an employer offers a promotion and enters into an employment contract.
An insurance company that proves that a client misrepresented its loss of rental income as a result of a fire can be entitled to attorney fees and costs.
A nonpatient who sues a health clinic for failure to protect him from a patient at the health clinic may not be required to file a written opinion from a similar healthcare provider.
A court can disqualify a party arbitrator who represented one of the parties in pre-arbitration negotiations and who continues to represent that party on various contracts.
To establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination, a plaintiff is required to prove: (1) she belonged to a protected class; (2) job performance was satisfactory; (3) she was discharged; and (4) her job remained open and was filled by a non-pregnant worker.
Allegations that the plaintiff was not promoted, because he received an unfair performance evaluation as a result of race discrimination, can be sufficient to allege an "adverse employment action" for purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
A faxed invitation that did name any products designed to treat a medical dysfunction did not constitute an "unsolicited advertisement," in violation of 47 United States Code §227 of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Government officials can remove a child from the custody of a parent, without a hearing, if an objectively reasonable basis exists to believe a threat to health or safety is imminent.
A plaintiff is not entitled to recover, dollar for dollar, expenses alleged to have been incurred due to a collision when the defendant concedes liability and such an argument discounted the jury's fundamental role of evaluating damages claimed with a discerning eye.
It is within the Workers' Compensation Commissioner's discretion to award a party attorney fees pursuant to the findings of fact and, where the factual predicate to sustain a legal fee award could not be found in the record, the Workers' Compensation Review Board properly affirmed the commissioner's corrected finding and award, reducing attorney fees to a nominal amount.
Practice Areas: Legal Profession
Connecticut General Statutes §4-165 grants state employees immunity from suit for negligence claims regarding conduct arising out of the scope of their employment, but such immunity does not extend to conduct alleged to be wanton, reckless or malicious.
For an instructional error, it was not within the trial court's province to take the verdict from the jury without any determination that the jury, even potentially, could have been misled or confused by the court's charge in reaching its verdict.
It cannot be concluded that a habeas court abuses its discretion in denying a petition for certification to appeal when the court was never presented with and, consequently, never ruled on the claims raised on appeal.
Landlords owe a duty to maintain common areas of an apartment building in a reasonably safe condition for the benefit of tenants who reside in the building and, because reasonable people can disagree about whether a landlord should have anticipated that a child playing in an apartment building's backyard reasonably might be injured by another child's mishandling of broken concrete or accumulated debris, the plaintiff was entitled to have a jury decide the question.
Extending the state's immunity to a private for profit entity should be a rare occurrence and, here, private entities that contracted with the state under Connecticut General Statutes §17b-372a to provide nursing home services to state prisoners and others in state custody, were not an "arm of the state" to assert the defense of sovereign immunity in an action brought against them by a municipality claiming noncompliance with zoning regulations.
A civil contempt finding should not attach just because it is more likely than not that an injunction was disobeyed beyond the eyes of a court; under Connecticut law, such proceedings should be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
A city can possess just cause to suspend a worker who does not immediately comply with a request to undergo a random drug test.
Evidence that a government agency hired a less experienced job applicant who had a degree in the requisite area, as opposed to an individual experienced in another field, may be insufficient to prove discrimination.
If an employee alleges a prima facie case of retaliation and an employer articulates a legitimate, non-retaliatory rationale for an adverse employment action, the employee must establish that retaliation was a "but for" cause of the adverse action to prevail.
A plaintiff who does not provide a "general description" of his injuries from a slip and fall on city property and the time and place of his fall may not comply with the requirements of Connecticut General Statutes §13a-149.
Good cause can exist to allow an attorney from another state to appear in Connecticut, pro hac vice, if: (1) a longstanding attorney-client relationship exists that predates the criminal case; (2) the attorney acquired specialized knowledge about the client; or (3) the client is unable to obtain a Connecticut attorney.
Allegations that defendants knew that equipment did not function properly and ordered that the equipment be used just one more day may not require an expert on causation, to prove negligence.
Absent "evidence of a threat to researchers," a court can order a public institution to disclose the names and grant numbers of animal researchers who allegedly violated research protocols.
Allegations that an accounting firm allegedly failed to include construction and manufacturing equipment on municipal property tax declarations, and to request an exemption for manufacturing equipment, can be sufficient to prove negligence.
To obtain a bill of discovery, a petitioner must establish: (1) a good-faith claim that evidence is material and necessary; (2) probable cause exists for a civil action; and (3) the absence of specific, effective, convenient and complete alternatives to obtain evidence.
Regardless of assurances in an employee handbook, an employer may not be required to interview an "at-will" worker, prior to discharging the worker, if the employee handbook clearly indicates it was not intended to create a contract.
To prevail on allegations of mail or wire fraud, the government must prove: (1) a scheme to defraud; (2) money or property is the object of the scheme; and (3) use of mail or wires to further the scheme.
With a motion for best interest findings necessary for an application for abused, neglected or abandoned special immigrant juvenile status under 8 U.S.C.§1101(a)(27)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the juvenile court must base its decision on state law, not policy considerations or desire to determine worthy candidates for citizenship.
Because the police had a duty to protect the public from an armed and dangerous fugitive fleeing from an armed robbery, a one-on-one show-up identification on the street was not unnecessarily suggestive as the procedure was justified by the need for an immediate identification.
Without evidence supporting allegations of an undisclosed agreement between the state and a testifying coconspirator, the habeas petitioner could not show prejudice from his appellate counsel's failure to get the issue of the trial court's denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing on the agreement before the Supreme Court.
Practice Areas: Criminal Law
As explained in the 2013 Appellate Court decision of White v. Comm'r of Correction, "[t]he constitution guarantees only a fair trial and a competent attorney; it does not ensure that every conceivable constitutional claim will be recognized and raised."
Precedent establishes that whether a case should be restored to the docket following a withdrawal is one of judicial discretion, and, here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to restore the case to the docket following its withdrawal on the ground that the terms of the parties' settlement agreement were clear and unambiguous.
Because the habeas petitioner failed to address the habeas court's conclusion that his petition for certification to appeal was untimely, he did not meet his burden to prove that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition.
An underinsured motorist carrier is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when all alleged tortfeasors settle the insured's claims against them for the injuries giving rise to the underinsured motorist claim in an aggregate sum in excess of the policy limits.
Practice Areas: Insurance Law
An individual who allegedly accepts a retainer to represent a client in a legal matter, although he is not admitted to the practice of law in Connecticut, can violate Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.