« July 2004 | Main | September 2004 »

August 31, 2004

The Supreme Court issued decisions in four cases last week.  In Cheryl Terry Enterprises, Ltd. v. Hartford (SC17067) (Concurrence and Dissent), the Court considered whether the plaintiff, an unsuccessful lowest bidder in a municipal bidding process, had standing to bring an antitrust claim against the defendant.  The Court answered that question in the affirmative and held that the trial court erred in setting aside a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff based upon an alleged lack of standing.  The Court also held that the trial court erred in setting aside the jury verdict based upon the plaintiff’s alleged failure to prove its damages with reasonable certainty.

The principal issue in Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Board of Education (SC17014, SC17015) (Dissent), was whether the state commission on human rights and opportunities had jurisdiction General Statutes § 46a-58(a) to consider a student’s claim of racial discrimination against a school principal and the local board of education based upon a discrete course of allegedly discriminatory conduct by the principal, or whether the state board of education had exclusive jurisdiction to hear such a claim, pursuant to General Statutes § 10-4b and § 10-15c.  The Court held that the CHRO had jurisdiction.

In Mele v. Hartford (SC17127), the Court held that there was insufficient evidence in the record to sustain the determination of the workers’ compensation commissioner that the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff in retaliation for exercising rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act, in violation of General Statutes § 31-290a.  The plaintiff sought to prove that the defendants knew that she exercised her rights under the Act based upon their knowledge that she suffered from work-related injuries.  The Court held that, as a matter of law, mere knowledge of work-related injuries is not sufficient to prove knowledge that an employee filed a workers’ compensation claim. 

In Tele Tech of Connecticut Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control (SC17105), the Court considered with the defendant DPUC, prior to revoking the plaintiff’s licenses to offer pay telephone services, afforded the plaintiff proper notice and an opportunity to be show that it had complied with all legal requirements for retaining such licenses.  The Supreme Court answered that question “no,” but held that the plaintiff’s rights did not substantially prejudiced the plaintiff.

Posted by dklau at 11:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 24, 2004

The Supreme Court issued one decision last week.  In State v. Ancona (SC16779), the state appealed a decision of the Appellate Court setting aside the defendant’s conviction based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.  The Appellate Court ruled that the prosecutor improperly diverted the jury's attention from deciding the case on the evidence against the defendant and that his comments improperly sought to appeal to the jurors' emotions and prejudices.  The Court disagreed and held that, although come of the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments were improper, they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

Posted by dklau at 11:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 17, 2004

The Court issued one decision this week. In State v. LaBrec (SC17126) (Concurrence), the defendant asked the Court to consider his unpreserved claim that the trial court improperly instructed the jury concerning its obligation, under General Statutes § 54-82h(c), to begin deliberating anew following the replacement of a regular juror after deliberations had begun.  The Court declined to review the claim under either State v. Golding or the plain error doctrine and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment of conviction.

Posted by dklau at 11:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 10, 2004

The state Supreme Court issued decisions in three cases last week.

In Coughlin v. Anderson (SC17046), the Court affirmed a directed verdict in favor of the defendants in a case involving a claim that the defendants had failed to disclose the existence of an easement in connection with the sale of a parcel of land.  The plaintiff raised three issues on appeal, all of which the Supreme Court rejected: 1) that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict based on the Connecticut Marketable Title Act because the defendants had failed to raise that statute as an affirmative defense; 2) that the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove damages with reasonable certainty; and 3) that the trial court erred in precluding the plaintiff’s expert from rendering an opinion on redirect examination.

In yet another case involving a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, State v. Sinvil (SC17021) (Concurrence) (Dissent), the Connecticut Supreme reversed the Appellate Court’s decision that certain remarks by the prosecutor during the rebuttal phase of closing arguments violated the defendant’s due process rights.  Although the state conceded that the remarks were improper (because they referred to facts not in evidence), the Court agreed with the state that the remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

In Del Toro v. Stamford (SC17050), the Court considered whether the compensability of a particular type of injury, under the Workers’ Compensation Act, implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of a workers’ compensation commissioner.  In a certified appeal from a decision of the Appellate Court answering that question in the negative, the Court held that whether a particular injury is compensable under the act is jurisdictional in nature.  As such, an employer is entitled to contest liability beyond the time frame set forth in General Statutes § 31-294c(b).

Posted by dklau at 06:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 03, 2004

The Connecticut Supreme Court issued four decisions last week.

In Cable v. Bic Corp. (SC17080), the defendants appealed the decision of a workers’ compensation commissioner that they had unlawfully terminated the plaintiff in violation of General Statutes § 31-290a.  The defendants argued that the commissioner failed to recite the burden-shifting analysis set forth in Ford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Connecticut, 216 Conn. 40 (1990).  Upholding the decision of the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court held that the commissioner was not required to recite the relevant legal standard and that, in the absence of a more complete record, it could not conclude that the commissioner had failed to apply the applicable standard.  This decision underscores how critically important it is for an appellant to ensure that an adequate record exists to permit review of a claim on appeal.

In Municipal Funding, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals (SC16934), the Supreme Court considered whether the Appellate Court had improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Waterbury Zoning Board of Appeals, which had denied the plaintiff’s application for a special exception.  The Supreme Court agreed with the defendant that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the zoning board’s decision and, therefore, that the Appellate Court had improperly substituted its judgment for that of the board.

In Friedman v. Connecticut Bar Examining Committee (SC17049), the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying the petitioner admission to the Connecticut bar.  The Supreme Court granted certification on the question whether the actions of the Connecticut bar examining committee had denied the petitioner due process.  The Court, however, subsequently dismissed the appeal on the ground that certification had been granted improvidently.

In State v. Garner (SC16710), the defendant appealed from his conviction on two counts of capital felony murder.  On appeal, he argued that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress in-court and out-of-court identifications on the ground that the police procedures connected with those identifications were suggestive.  He also challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the murder convictions on the ground that the principal had been acquitted.  Finally, he challenged a jury instruction charging that he could be found guilty of murder and capital felony based on conspiratorial liability pursuant to Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).  The Supreme Court rejected all claims of error and affirmed the judgment of conviction.

Posted by dklau at 10:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack