The Connecticut Supreme Court has released its argument calendar for its first term of the 2016-2017 sitting. In a previous post, we profiled the first week of the September term. Here’s a look at the second week:
Monday, September 19th
The Court will first hear Connecticut Light and Power Company v. Proctor, SC 19531, which is a dispute over whether a consultant to a chicken farm could be held personally liable to the power company for electrical bills based on an implied-in-fact contract. The second case is Disciplinary Counsel v. Parnoff, SC 19535, where the State Disciplinary Counsel appeals from Appellate Court and trial court decisions that determined that an attorney’s “negligent” commingling of escrowed funds with personal funds did not require disbarment even if those funds were “knowingly” taken.
Tuesday, September 20th
The Court hears cases about workers compensation insurance and bail bonds. In Graham v. Olson Woods Associates, Inc., SC 19626, the Court will consider whether an insurer that has been dismissed from a workers compensation claim based on asbestos exposure can be cited back into the case when a different insurer initially thought to be primarily obligated for the claim is dismissed from the case. In State v. Agron, SC 19499, a bail bondsman brings a writ of error arguing that he should be released from his bond obligation where the defendant, after failing to appear in court, was located in Puerto Rico but the State declined to seek extradition.
Wednesday, September 21st
The Court will hear two tax-related appeals. In Heisinger v. Cleary, SC 19633, the Court will hear a case brought by a decedent’s son claiming that the coexecutors of the decedent’s estate breached their fiduciary duties in valuing the estate’s stock holdings and causing the estate to incur additional taxes. In Nutmeg Housing Development Corporation v. Town of Colchester, SC 19551, the Court is presented with the issue of how municipalities should assess affordable housing projects that are subsidized with low-income housing tax credits. (Murtha Cullina authored an amicus brief in this appeal).
Thursday, September 22nd
The Court hears a family case and a corporate governance challenge. In Keller v. Keller, SC 19537, the Court will decide whether the Practice Book requirement that divorcees notify the other party or other party’s attorney of changes of address applies only to the initial move from the family home or to all subsequent moves. In Sowell v. Dicara, SC 19534, the Court will address whether a party who has been sued by a corporate board and, pursuant to CGS 33-1089 challenges the validity of the election of corporate directors and officers in order to defeat the lawsuit, can obtain immediate appellate review of its challenge to the board’s election.
Friday, September 23rd
The Court closes the first term with a child protection case and a criminal case. In In re: Daniel N., SC 19731, the Court address whether the canvass of trial procedure and rights for parental termination hearings that was required by the Court’s decision last year in In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (2015) applies retroactively. The final case is State v. Swebilius, SC 19526, where the Court will consider whether a trial court must consider the State’s due diligence before tolling a statute of limitations when there is a delay between obtaining the arrest warrant and serving it.
Appellate Insights provides analysis and insight on appeals of interest to the business community. Check back after the oral arguments for posts analyzing Connecticut Light and Power Company v. Proctor, SC 19531 (implied contracts); Disciplinary Counsel v. Parnoff, SC 19535 (professional discipline); Graham v. Olson Woods Associates, Inc., SC 19626 (workers compensation insurers); Heisinger v. Cleary, SC 19633 (estate taxes); Nutmeg Housing Development Corporation v. Town of Colchester, SC 19551 (low-income housing tax credits); and Sowell v. Dicara, SC 19534 (corporate governance).