The Supreme Court held its first conference since returning from the summer break on Tuesday, September 13th to consider petitions for certification filed by parties seeking to appeal from decisions of the Appellate Court. In order to appeal from an Appellate Court decision, three or more justices of the Supreme Court most vote to
Proloy Das is the Chair of the Firm's Appellate Practice Group. In addition to appeals, he handles special litigation matters such as injunctions and declaratory judgment actions. Proloy has briefed and argued over fifty appeals in the Connecticut Appellate and Supreme Courts.
Today, the Connecticut Attorney General filed an application for certification to file a public interest appeal in Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell, HHD-CV-14-5037565-S, the high-profile school funding lawsuit pending in Hartford Superior Court. The State is seeking permission to pursue an appeal under Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-265a which permits immediate appellate review of decisions rendered before the completion of a case under special circumstances.
Last week, Judge Thomas Moukawsher issued a 90-page post-trial decision declaring that Connecticut’s education funding policy is “irrational.” Rather than enter a final judgment, the court scheduled further proceedings to be held after the State has submitted to the court proposed reforms and after the plaintiffs have commented on those proposals. The judge gave the State until March 6, 2017 to submit its proposal addressing education related concerns such as the relationship between state and local government in education, a formula for statewide funding, standards for hiring, evaluating, and paying teachers, and funding and defining special education. In the last words of its decision, the court “retain[ed] jurisdiction” over the case until those issues had been addressed.
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).
The Connecticut Supreme Court has released its argument calendar for its first term of the 2016-2017 sitting. Here’s a look at the first week:
Monday, September 12th
The Court will hear a pair of juvenile sentencing cases State v. Delgado, SC 19663 and State v. Boyd, SC 19673. The issue in both cases is whether Eight Amendment challenges to life sentences for crimes committed by minors where the court failed to consider the defendants’ youth as a mitigating factor are now moot in light of Public Act 15-84 which provides for parole hearings for juvenile offenders sentenced to more than ten years in prison.
Tuesday, September 13th
The Court will hear three cases in the areas of product liability, workers compensation, and criminal law. The first case is Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc., SC 19310, where the Court will hear re-argument in a case it heard last year in order to consider whether it should abandon the consumer expectation test for product liability actions premised on design defects in favor of the risk utility test set forth in the Third Restatement. Twelve organizations have filed amici briefs in the case. (Murtha Cullina authored an amicus brief in this appeal). The second case of the day is a workers compensation appeal in Holston v. City of New Haven Police Department, SC 1963, where the question is whether an untimely filing of a hypertension claim barred a subsequent claim for heart disease benefits. Finally, in State v. Bouiknight, SC 19326, the Court will consider the authentication necessary to admit a Facebook profile page into evidence.
The Connecticut Supreme Court is now open and in session…
September brings with it the beginning of a new year at the Connecticut Supreme Court. It also marks the start of “Appellate Insights,” a blog by the Appellate Practice Group at Murtha Cullina. Our goal is to analyze and discuss civil appeals pending before the…