This case concerns a claim for loss of consortium damages by Charlotte Stacey, the domestic partner of Margaret Mueller, who allegedly suffered injury from medical negligence by the defendants. The trial court struck the claim, and the Appellate Court affirmed that ruling. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal, limited to two issues: whether the Appellate Court properly affirmed on grounds different from those relied on by the trial court, and whether Stacey could recover loss of consortium damages given that she was not married to her partner at the time of the injury because same-sex marriage and civil unions were not legally recognized then.
This case arose from a dispute involving the estate of Hazel Smart against medical providers including Dr. David Roer and Saint Mary's Hospital. The plaintiffs sought review after the Appellate Court dismissed their appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the petition for certification to appeal but limited the issue to whether the Appellate Court had properly dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. No decision was made on the underlying claims, and one justice did not participate.
This case concerns a defendant's petition to the Connecticut Supreme Court seeking review of an Appellate Court decision in a criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court's ruling at 132 Conn. App. 62. The opinion provides no further explanation or reasoning for the denial. One justice did not participate in considering or deciding the petition.
This case concerns a petition for certification to appeal a decision of the Connecticut Appellate Court in a dispute between Petraq Bode and Connecticut Mason Contractors along with other defendants. The Supreme Court of Connecticut considered the defendants' request to review the lower court's ruling but ultimately denied the petition. As a result, the Appellate Court's judgment remains in effect without further review by the state's highest court. Justice Eveleigh did not participate in the decision on this petition.
This case concerns a criminal prosecution in which defendant Nemiah Allan challenged his conviction for conspiracy to sell drugs, arguing for recognition of a buyer-seller exception that would preclude liability when a transaction involves only a single sale between two parties. The Appellate Court declined to adopt that exception. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, but limited review to the narrow question of whether the Appellate Court correctly refused to adopt the buyer-seller exception to a charge of conspiracy to sell drugs.
This case involves defendant Anwar Shakir's petition asking the Connecticut Supreme Court to review a decision by the state Appellate Court in his criminal case. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court's ruling. As a result, the Appellate Court's judgment stands without further consideration by the state's highest court. No detailed reasoning for the denial appears in the opinion.
This case concerns a petition to the Connecticut Supreme Court seeking review of an Appellate Court decision dismissing an appeal from a probation violation finding. The Appellate Court had ruled the appeal moot, even though the criminal conviction underlying the violation was being challenged separately in a habeas corpus action. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certification, but limited it solely to the question of whether the Appellate Court properly treated the appeal as moot in light of the ongoing habeas challenge.
In Milliun v. New Milford Hospital, the plaintiff brought a negligence action against the hospital alleging it caused her injuries. The trial court excluded certain statements from medical records that the plaintiff sought to introduce to prove causation, but the Appellate Court held this exclusion was an abuse of discretion. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the hospital's petition for certification to appeal, but limited review to the narrow question of whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court erred in failing to admit the records.
This case arose from a marital dissolution proceeding in which the parties disputed the division of the defendant's pension accounts under the original judgment. The trial court issued a clarification on how the pensions should be divided, which the Appellate Court ruled constituted an impermissible modification of the judgment rather than a valid clarification. The plaintiff then petitioned the Supreme Court of Connecticut for review. The Supreme Court granted certification limited to the question of whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that the trial court's action amounted to an improper modification. No decision on the merits was reached in this order.
The case involved defendant Harry Gonzalez's convictions for felony murder, first-degree robbery, and first-degree kidnapping arising from the 2005 killing of Joanne Trautwein. On appeal, Gonzalez challenged the trial court's handling of alleged juror misconduct, its partial denial of his motion to suppress statements made to police, the imposition of separate punishments for felony murder and robbery under double-jeopardy principles, and the lack of a Salamon instruction on the kidnapping charge. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that police violated the defendant's Miranda and Edwards rights by failing to cease interrogation after he invoked counsel and by continuing to sit silently in the room, which was reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses without a valid waiver. The court separately concluded that the double-jeopardy claim lacked merit and would not bar retrial on the felony-murder and robbery counts.
This case involves a contract dispute between Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. and Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC over the denial of attorney's fees. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for contractual attorney's fees, and the Appellate Court affirmed that ruling. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited solely to the question of whether the Appellate Court improperly upheld the trial court's denial of the fees motion.
In Gillians v. Vivanco-Small, the plaintiffs sought certification from the Connecticut Supreme Court to appeal a ruling of the Appellate Court in case AC 32133, reported at 128 Conn. App. 207. The court denied the petition for certification to appeal. Justice Eveleigh did not participate in the consideration of or decision on the petition. The opinion provides no details on the underlying claims or any reasoning for the denial.
This case concerns a dispute in which the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement against the defendants. The trial court granted the motion, and the Appellate Court affirmed that ruling. The defendants then petitioned for review by the Connecticut Supreme Court, which granted certification limited to the question of whether the Appellate Court properly upheld the enforcement of the agreement. Justice Eveleigh did not participate in the consideration or decision on the petition.
This case concerns a medical malpractice action against Bristol Hospital and the application of res judicata after a prior lawsuit was dismissed. The plaintiffs challenged the Appellate Court’s reversal of the trial court’s denial of summary judgment, which had been based on the earlier action being stricken for failure to comply with General Statutes § 52-190a. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the petition for certification to appeal but limited review to the narrow issue of whether the Appellate Court properly reversed on res judicata grounds. No merits decision was reached; the order simply allows further consideration of the procedural question.
This case involves Richard Koslik's petition for certification to appeal a decision by the Appellate Court regarding his habeas corpus petition against the Commissioner of Correction. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the petition, but limited the appeal to the issue of whether the Appellate Court correctly found that the habeas court had improperly denied Koslik's request to appeal its decision. The court provided no further reasoning in this order, and one justice did not participate in the decision.
This case, State v. Golder, concerns a criminal defendant's attempt to obtain further appellate review after an adverse decision by the Connecticut Appellate Court in 127 Conn. App. 181. The Connecticut Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for certification to appeal. No detailed reasoning for the denial is provided in the opinion excerpt. Justice Eveleigh did not participate in the decision on the petition.
This case involves a defendant's petition seeking certification to appeal an Appellate Court ruling in the criminal matter of State v. Ramey, cited as 127 Conn. App. 560. The Connecticut Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal. No detailed reasoning or analysis was included in the order. Justice Eveleigh did not participate in considering or deciding the petition.
This case concerns a dispute between Aaron Manor, Inc. and Janet A. Irving over an award of attorney's fees under General Statutes § 42-150bb. The trial court granted the fees, but the Appellate Court reversed that award. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the single issue of whether the Appellate Court properly reversed the trial court's award. The decision allows the Supreme Court to review the application of the statute but does not address the underlying merits of the fee award or the case.
The case concerns a petition by the plaintiffs in Rodriguez v. E.D. Construction, Inc. seeking permission to appeal a decision of the Connecticut Appellate Court reported at 126 Conn. App. 717. The Connecticut Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal. The opinion provides no further explanation of the underlying dispute or the reasons for denial. Justice Eveleigh did not participate in the decision.
The case Corriveau v. Corriveau involves a family dispute that was decided by the Connecticut Appellate Court in a prior ruling at 126 Conn. App. 231. The defendant petitioned for certification to appeal that decision to a higher court. The court denied the petition for certification, leaving the Appellate Court decision in place. One justice did not participate in considering or deciding the petition. No further reasoning for the denial is provided in the opinion.