C. Ian McLachlan

This case centers on a challenge to the exclusion of expert witness testimony in a civil lawsuit brought by estate administrators against medical providers. The trial court barred testimony from two board-certified obstetricians and gynecologists offered by the plaintiffs, and the Appellate Court affirmed that ruling as within the trial court's discretion. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition for certification to appeal, but limited review to the single issue of whether the Appellate Court properly found no abuse of discretion in the exclusion of the experts.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a criminal prosecution in which defendant Oles J. Baptiste was charged with assault of a peace officer. The Appellate Court had ruled that the trial court's jury instructions on that charge were inadequate. The Supreme Court of Connecticut granted the state's petition for certification to appeal, but limited review solely to the question of whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that the instructions were inadequate. The court made no decision on the merits of the jury-instruction issue itself.

criminal lawprocedure

In Carmichael v. Stonkus, the named defendant petitioned the Supreme Court of Connecticut for certification to appeal a decision issued by the state's Appellate Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal. The brief order provided no further explanation for the denial, and one justice did not participate in the consideration of the petition.

procedure

This case involved the distribution of approximately $404,000 in surplus proceeds from the foreclosure sale of a Greenwich property that had been encumbered by multiple successive mortgages obtained through a series of forged releases and fraudulent loans by defendant Andrew Kissel. The plaintiff Hudson Valley Bank initiated foreclosure, and title insurers Stewart Title and First American each claimed priority to the surplus based on assignments of earlier mortgages. The trial court initially apportioned the funds pro rata but, on reargument, awarded all remaining proceeds to First American. The appellate court affirmed, holding that First American was entitled to the funds under the first-in-time, first-in-right rule because its assigned Washington Mutual mortgage had been recorded before Stewart Title's assigned Independence mortgage, and it rejected Stewart Title's challenges to intervention, reargument standards, and equitable apportionment.

propertyprocedure

The case involved podiatrists and their professional association suing Health Net of Connecticut for reimbursing them at lower rates than medical doctors for identical procedures using the same billing codes, which the plaintiffs claimed constituted unfair discrimination under the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that General Statutes § 38a-816(10) prohibits unfair discrimination only in the denial of reimbursement claims, not in the setting of reimbursement rates themselves. It rejected the plaintiffs' broader interpretation after examining the statute's text, structure, and legislative history, including its separate clause barring discrimination based on race, color, or creed.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case concerned orders by the Freedom of Information Commission requiring the Ethics Commission of Glastonbury to create detailed minutes of past closed meetings and to audio record all future closed sessions for three years after finding violations of the open meetings law. The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the trial court's dismissal of the ethics commission's appeals, concluding that the orders exceeded the commission's remedial authority under the Freedom of Information Act. The court determined that the act does not permit the commission to impose such prospective recording requirements to remedy past violations.

free speechprocedure

This case involves a petition by the plaintiffs for certification to appeal a prior decision of the Connecticut Appellate Court in Reizfeld v. Reizfeld, reported at 125 Conn. App. 782. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal. The opinion provides no further explanation or reasoning for the denial. The matter was decided on February 23, 2011, with one justice not participating.

family lawprocedure

This case concerned whether an insurance company, as respondent in a workers' compensation proceeding, could file a declaratory judgment action in superior court to challenge the constitutionality of General Statutes § 31-294c (d) before the workers' compensation commissioner completed proceedings on a survivor's benefits claim. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff insurer, and the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the plaintiff had standing because it faced the concrete injury of defending against a potentially time-barred claim, and that the constitutional issue was ripe for judicial review without requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before the commissioner. The defendants' arguments that the action was premature or that the plaintiff lacked a sufficient legal interest were rejected. The court did not address the merits of the constitutional challenge.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involves a defendant's petition seeking review by the Connecticut Supreme Court of an Appellate Court decision in Schwarz v. Schwarz, cited as 124 Conn. App. 472. The court denied the petition for certification to appeal. No detailed reasoning for the denial is provided in the opinion. Justice McLachlan did not participate in the consideration or decision on the petition.

procedure

The case Murphy v. EAPWJP, LLC concerns a dispute over property rights involving a walkway built on tidal wetlands that was deemed a per se public nuisance. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the named defendant's petition for certification to appeal the Appellate Court's ruling in 123 Conn. App. 316. Certification was limited to the issue of whether construction and use of such a walkway can establish a prescriptive easement over the underlying tidal wetlands. Justice McLachlan did not participate in the decision on the petition.

propertyenvironment

This case involved the state of Connecticut seeking permission to appeal an Appellate Court ruling in a criminal matter against defendant Calvin N., cited as 122 Conn. App. 216. The Connecticut Supreme Court denied the state's petition for certification to appeal. As a result, the Appellate Court's decision remains in effect and is not subject to further review by the Supreme Court. The order was issued without participation by Justice McLachlan, though the excerpt provides no additional substantive reasoning for the denial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the termination of parental rights of a father and mother with respect to their child, Joseph W. The trial court entered judgment terminating those rights, but the Appellate Court reversed the decision. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the petition by the commissioner of children and families for certification to appeal, limited to the question of whether the Appellate Court properly reversed the trial court's judgment. No further analysis or decision on the merits is provided in this excerpt.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned appeals by New York property owners living within 100 feet of a Connecticut parcel from decisions by the New Canaan planning and zoning commission approving a subdivision and special permit applications to build a church. The trial court dismissed both appeals for lack of standing under General Statutes § 8-8, concluding that the statute was intended to protect only Connecticut landowners. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissals, holding that the statute's plain language grants standing to aggrieved persons owning land within 100 feet of the subject property without regard to state boundaries, that service requirements were satisfied, and that collateral estoppel did not bar the second appeal.

propertyprocedure

The case In Re Jaiden S. involved a respondent father petitioning for certification to appeal from a prior decision of the Connecticut Appellate Court in a matter concerning his child. The court denied the petition for certification. No reasoning for the denial was stated in the opinion. Justice McLachlan did not participate in considering or deciding the petition.

family lawprocedure

This case, Town of Wallingford v. Stancuna, originated in the lower courts and reached the Appellate Court under docket AC 32104. The named defendant then filed a petition seeking certification to appeal the Appellate Court's decision to a higher court. The court denied the petition for certification, leaving the Appellate Court's ruling in place as the final disposition. Justice McLachlan did not take part in reviewing or deciding the petition.

procedure

This case involved petitioner Eriberto Deleon seeking review by the Connecticut Supreme Court of an Appellate Court decision in a matter against the Commissioner of Correction, referenced as AC 29679. The court denied the petition for certification to appeal. The opinion provides no further explanation or reasoning for the denial. Justice McLachlan did not participate in the decision.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a criminal defendant's attempt to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that the trial court did not adequately inform him of possible deportation consequences. The trial court denied the motion to withdraw, but the Appellate Court reversed that ruling. The state petitioned the Connecticut Supreme Court for review, and the Supreme Court granted certification limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court erred in reversing the trial court's decision based on the failure to address deportation. The docket number is SC 18621, and the order was issued on June 2, 2010.

criminal lawimmigrationprocedure

This case arose from a hospital's summary suspension of a physician's surgical privileges after concerns about his clinical performance were raised by staff and an external reviewer. The physician sued the hospital for damages, and a jury found in his favor, but the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on the favorable termination doctrine and other grounds, while also directing a verdict on the CUTPA claim and ordering remittitur. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, holding that the favorable termination doctrine does not apply to actions challenging hospital privilege suspensions and that the hospital had not substantially complied with its bylaws' requirement of a potential immediate risk to patients. The court affirmed the directed verdict on the CUTPA claim, finding the suspension decision was medical rather than commercial, and upheld the remittitur. Alternate grounds for affirmance, such as immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and collateral estoppel, were rejected.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between abutting landowners and the owners of a nonnavigable artificial reservoir in Old Saybrook, Connecticut, over whether the plaintiffs had acquired rights to use the entire reservoir for recreational activities like boating, swimming, fishing, and skating, as well as ownership of disputed shoreline land. The plaintiffs had used the reservoir openly and continuously without permission for more than 25 years, and the trial court ruled in their favor on both the prescriptive easement claim and the title to the disputed land by record ownership or, alternatively, adverse possession. The defendants appealed, arguing that such an easement could not be acquired as a matter of law over an artificial water body, that the elements of prescription were not met, and that expert testimony on burdens and boundaries was improperly handled. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Connecticut law permits prescriptive easements for recreational use of such waters when the statutory elements are satisfied by clear evidence of open, continuous, and adverse use for the required period, and that the plaintiffs met those elements while also establishing title to the land. The court further held that the trespass counterclaim failed in light of these findings.

property

The case involved plaintiffs, including Gail DeCorso appearing pro se, who sought review by the Connecticut Supreme Court of an Appellate Court ruling in their dispute against the defendants. The court denied the petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court decision reported at 118 Conn. App. 617. The denial was issued on March 30, 2010, without stated reasons and with Justice McLachlan not participating in the consideration or decision.

procedure