Advance Release Opinions – January and February

I fell behind in reviewing decisions because I was tied up writing briefs during the back half of January and most of February. This post catches me up on the Connecticut Supreme Court’s advance release opinions. I will catch up on the Appellate Court’s advance release opinions in a separate post.

Supreme Court

Officially Released January 17 – Constitutionality of Education System

Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell – Voluntary membership organization, schoolchildren, and their parents sought a declaratory judgment that defendants failed to provide suitable and substantially equal educational opportunities in violation of the Connecticut constitution. Supreme Court confirmed that (i) the individual plaintiffs had standing because the complaint raised a colorable claim that their specific, personal, and legal interest was being specially and injuriously affected by the defendants’ acts or omissions; (ii) voluntary membership organization had associational standing; (iii) trial court applied an incorrect constitutional standard in concluding state’s educational system was unconstitutional; (iv) defendants did not fail to provide plaintiffs with a minimally adequate educational opportunity based on an alleged inadequate level of teaching; and (v) plaintiffs failed to establish that the disparities between the funding of the neediest and least needy school districts was unconstitutional. Three justices concurred and dissented in a single opinion.

Officially Released January 18 – Worker’s Comp Exception for Subjective Belief of Certain Injury; Identifiable Persons Exception to Govt Immunity

Lucenti v. Laviero – In this worker’s compensation case, summary judgment for employer was proper because worker failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact about the applicability of the exception to the worker’s compensation act for the employer’s subjective belief of a substantial certainty of injury. The official syllabus indicates that the evidence “fell short of demonstrating that [the employer] subjectively believed that an injury was substantially certain to result, as there was no evidence of prior accidents involving the excavator, a protracted history of workplace safety violations, or any deception on the part of the [employer] with respect to any dangers presented by the excavator.” There was one concurrence, and a first and second dissent.

Martinez v. New Haven – Supreme Court reversed trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff proved the imminent harm to identifiable persons exception to the defense of governmental immunity with respect to injuries that he sustained when other students ran with safety scissors in his school’s auditorium. One justice dissented.

Officially Released January 26 – Attorney’s Fees for Consumer for Commercial Party’s Withdrawal of Action

Connecticut Housing Finance Authority v. Alfaro – The Supreme Court stated the issue as follows: “[W]hether, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-150bb, a defendant may be awarded attorney’s fees when the plaintiff withdraws an action as a matter of right pursuant to General Statutes § 52-80.” Under § 42-150bb, if a consumer contract gives the commercial party the right to recover attorney’s fees from the consumer, the consumer has the right to recover his or her attorney’s fees from the commercial party. Under § 52-80, a plaintiff may withdraw an action without court approval if no hearing on the merits has commenced, or with court approval if a hearing has commenced. With two justices dissenting, the Supreme Court concluded:

Officially Released January 30 – Nonsuit as Sanction for Failing to Comply with Order to File Confidential Settlement Agreement

Ridgaway v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company – Ridgaway settled a dram shop case against a nightclub and several of its liability insurers. As part of that settlement, he took an assignment of  the nightclub’s rights against Mt. Vernon, who was a non-settling insurer in the dram shop case. In Ridgaway’s subsequent action against Mt. Vernon, the trial court resolved a discovery dispute by ordering Ridgaway to file the settlement agreement from the dram shop action, which was confidential. When Ridgawway did not file it, the trial court nonsuited him. The Appellate Court reversed, finding that the sanction of nonsuit was disproportionate to the misconduct. The Supreme Court found that the trial court improperly based its nonsuit on facts that were not in the record and remanded for determination of an appropriate sanction based on the record – which still could include a nonsuit.

Officially Released January 31 – Independent Contractor vs. Employee for Compensation Fund Purposes

Kirby of Norwich v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation – Strange as it may seem in 2018, Kirby is a company that sold vacuum cleaners door-to-door. It claimed it was exempt from contributing to the unemployment compensation fund because, in its view, its sales people were independent contractors, not employees. The administrator rejected that idea. So did the trial court. And so did the Supreme Court.

Officially Released February 2 – Calculation of State Employee Retirement Benefits

Bouchard v. State Employees Retirement Commission – For this one, I’m going to give the question and answer as framed by the Supreme Court:

Question: “[W]hether all state employees, irrespective of when they retired, are entitled to have their benefits recalculated in accordance with Longley.”

Answer: “[P]laintiffs’ claims for recalculation of benefits were time barred, and for the reasons supporting that conclusion neither they nor the class is entitled to relief.”

Officially Released February 27 – Saving Untimely Action by Timely Delivering Process to Marshal

Doe v. West Hartford – Marshal’s return indicated service after statute of limitations expired. Return did not recite date process was delivered to marshal as contemplated by CGS § 52-593a(b). Plaintiff opposed summary judgment with evidence that process was delivered to the marshal for service before the limitations period expired. Trial court granted summary judgment, finding plaintiff’s evidence was not admissible to create a genuine issue of fact about whether he had timely delivered process to the marshal to invoke the 30-day savings provision of CGS § 52-593a(a). The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the record contained sufficient evidence to create a fact issue about the application of the savings provision, and rejecting defendants’ claim that the marshal’s failure to recite the date he received process was fatal to the savings provision.

Officially Released March 6 – Personal Jurisdiction over State Employees sued Individually; Identifiable Person/Imminent Harm and Govt Immunity

Harnage v. Lightner – Supreme Court confirmed that former inmate’s action against state employees for violation of his constitutional rights was properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff conceded that he sued defendants only in their individual capacities, which rendered ineffectual his attempt to serve them by leaving process with the Attorney General.

Brooks v. Powers –  Police did not dispatch anyone in response to a call that a woman was standing in a field during a severe thunderstorm and possibly needed medical attention. The next morning, a fisherman found the woman, drowned, in a body of water a half-mile away from the field. The Supreme Court directed that judgment enter for defendants because death by drowning a half-mile away the next day was an unforeseeable result of standing in a field during a thunderstorm, and the connection between those events was too attenuated to abrogate governmental immunity under the “imminent harm” exception. One justice dissented.