The case involved a dispute over whether Edith Baron had the mental capacity to execute a valid will in July 2002, with two of her children challenging a will that favored their sister Jeanne Baron over an earlier will that divided assets more evenly. The trial court disallowed the later will after finding the decedent incompetent based on a neuropsychologist's evaluation of her ability to handle complex financial matters. The Appellate Court of Connecticut reversed the trial court's judgments, concluding that an incorrect legal standard had been applied to the question of testamentary capacity. Under Connecticut law, the proper test is whether the testator had sufficient mind and memory to understand the business of executing a will at the time it was signed, not the higher threshold of managing complex financial decisions.
The case involved a claim of malicious prosecution brought by Gladys Kronovitter against a municipal police officer and a town animal control officer after her arrest for animal cruelty, which stemmed from the poor condition of numerous dogs found on her property; the criminal charges were later nolled. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court's jury instructions on probable cause were proper when limited to the animal cruelty statute while allowing consideration of related statutory violations, that certain expert testimony was admissible, and that evidence from a related in rem proceeding was properly admitted for a limited purpose.
The case involved defendant Bipin Shah, who was convicted after a bench trial of two counts of attempt to commit risk of injury to a child and one count of attempt to entice a minor. The charges arose from his repeated online chats with an undercover officer posing as a fourteen-year-old girl, in which he discussed sexual acts, arranged motel meetings, and drove to the agreed location with items like a camera and microphone. Shah appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he took a substantial step toward the crimes or possessed the required intent, and that chat transcripts were improperly admitted. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant's persistent communications, travel to the meeting site, and preparations provided ample evidence of both a substantial step and criminal intent, and that the transcripts were admissible.
This case involved a medical malpractice claim arising from the death of a newborn during delivery at a hospital, where the mother, as administratrix, initially sued the obstetrician, nurse midwife, their employer Shoreline Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.C., the hospital, and later the defendants who purchased Shoreline's assets. After settling with Shoreline and its employees via covenants not to sue and withdrawing those claims, the plaintiff pursued successor liability against the defendants under theories like continuity of enterprise. The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the covenants not to sue, which discharged Shoreline from all related claims, also precluded successor liability against the purchasers. The court reasoned that successor liability is coterminous with and derives solely from the predecessor's liability, so protecting Shoreline necessarily protects the successors standing in its shoes, and the broad language of the agreements confirmed a full discharge of liability.
The case concerned a loss of consortium claim brought by Charlotte Stacey against a gynecologic oncologist and her practice after the doctor's alleged malpractice injured Stacey's same-sex domestic partner, Margaret Mueller, between 2001 and 2004. Stacey and Mueller had lived together since 1985 and entered a civil union in 2005, but the third amended complaint did not allege that they would have married or formalized their relationship before the malpractice occurred. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to strike the consortium counts, ruling that no legal marriage or civil union existed at the time of the injury, and the appellate court affirmed because loss of spousal consortium requires a legally recognized relationship at the time of the wrong and the complaint lacked the necessary allegations to support an exception.
In State v. Dillard, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of manslaughter in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and threatening in the second degree, stemming from an incident in which he stabbed his former romantic partner to death, threatened others, and stole a vehicle. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to inquire into a possible conflict of interest with his counsel after an alleged assault, by admitting evidence of his prior acts of misconduct, and by denying his motion to sever certain charges. The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment of conviction. It reasoned that the defendant had affirmatively waived any conflict by stating he wished to continue with the same counsel, that the prior misconduct evidence was properly admitted to show intent, motive, and absence of accident, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the joinder of charges.