Here’s a look at the second week of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s October 2016 term:

Monday, October 17th

The Court starts the week by hearing oral argument in Gold v. Rowland, SC 19585, a fifteen year old lawsuit by state employees claiming that they were entitled to stock when their insurer demutualized. Two criminal cases follow: In State v. Samuel M., SC 19578, the Court will consider what the standards should govern determining when a child charged with a felony should be tried as an adult on the regular criminal docket.  In State v. Bouknight, SC19326, the Court is confronted with the question of how Facebook profiles should be authenticated to support admission as evidence.

Tuesday, October 18th

The Court will consider an environmental protection challenge to operations at Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Burton v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, SC 19664, specifically a challenge to an administrative proceeding renewing a permit allowing discharge of wastewater into Long Island Sound.  In Chestnut Point Realty v. Town of Windsor, SC 19554, the Court will decide whether the superior court has the authority to hear a property tax appeal that was timely filed with the superior court but not timely served on the Town.

Wednesday, October 19th

The Court will hear two appeals during a special session being held at Quinnipiac University School of Law as part of the Judicial Branch’s “On Circuit” education program. The first is Maio v. City of New Haven, SC 19401, where the Court will consider whether a police officer who was charged with and found not guilty of sexual assault arising from an incident that occurred while he was working on an “extra duty” assignment for a private nightclub, is entitled to have his attorneys fees for the criminal prosecution paid for by the City. (Murtha Cullina is representing the City of New Haven in this appeal). The second case is State v. Fay, SC 19350, where the issue is whether the trial court should have conducted an in camera review of a deceased victim’s psychiatric records to see if there was any evidence that would support a self-defense claim.

Thursday, October 20th

In Marciano v. Jiminiz, SC 19547, the Court will consider whether a personal injury award can be reduced for collateral source payments made under an ERISA health plan. The second case of the day, Dattco, Inc. v. Commissioner of Transportation, S.C. 19558, is a challenge to the new CTfastrak initiative, where the plaintiffs argue that the State unconstitutionally used its eminent domain power to take away the rights of other bus services to certain specified routes in order to create the Busway.

Friday, October 21st

The October term closes with three arguments. The first is Breton v. Commissioner of Correction, SC 19072, a habeas corpus action by a former death row inmate who claims that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in pursuing a petition for a new trial. Balloli v. City of New Haven, SC 19584, is a workers compensation appeal where the question is whether a police officer who hurt his back when he stopped to pick up his dropped car keys on the walk from his house to his car is entitled to workers compensation since he had “departed his place of abode” to report to duty. The October term ends with State v. Holley, SC 19662 (rescheduled from last week), which is a Fourth Amendment case challenging the adequacy of a search warrant to justify the seizure of a firearm from the defendant’s residence

AppellateInsights provides analysis and insight on appeals of interest to the business community. Check back after the oral arguments for posts further analyzing appeals that may affect Connecticut businesses.