This case arose after a remand from a prior appeal in a product liability action under the Connecticut Product Liability Act. The plaintiff, who suffered cardiac arrest and brain damage after her pacemaker rate was lowered, claimed that a Medtronic representative caused the injury by adjusting the device despite knowing it needed replacement. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed, challenging the framing of the remanded factual issue, the finding that the verdict was unanimous, and the admission of evidence regarding the treating physicians' alleged negligence on the question of causation. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court properly stated the issue for trial, correctly determined the verdict was unanimous after polling the jury, and appropriately allowed evidence of alternative causes including physician negligence to rebut the plaintiff's causation claim.
The case involved an appeal by the defendant husband from a trial court judgment dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff wife and issuing related financial orders concerning child support, alimony, and asset division for their three children. The appellate court considered claims that the trial court improperly calculated child support from employment bonuses, retroactively modified prior orders, double-divided assets, admitted evidence, and awarded attorney fees. The court reasoned that the trial court's orders complied with statutory guidelines, did not improperly modify past obligations retroactively, and properly addressed the parties' financial circumstances based on the evidence presented.
This case concerns a petition filed by the respondent father seeking certification to appeal a prior ruling by the Connecticut Appellate Court in the matter of In Re Daniel L., docketed as AC 30084. The court denied the petition for certification to appeal. Justice Vertefeuille did not participate in considering or deciding the petition.
This case concerns a criminal prosecution of defendant Thompson, who sought further review after an adverse decision by the Connecticut Appellate Court. The Connecticut Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court's ruling in 120 Conn. App. 288. No explanation or reasoning for the denial is provided in the decision, which was issued on May 5, 2010, with one justice not participating. The state was represented by a deputy assistant state's attorney in opposition to the petition.
This case concerns a petition by the named defendant, Robert Walpuck, seeking certification to appeal a prior decision of the Appellate Court in a lawsuit brought against him by Washington Mutual Bank. The court denied the petition for certification to appeal. The decision was issued on May 5, 2010, and one justice did not participate in considering or deciding the petition.
The case In Re Justin F. involved a petition by the respondent parents seeking certification to appeal from a decision of the Appellate Court in AC 31728. The court denied the petition for certification. No reasoning or further details about the underlying dispute were provided in the opinion. Justice Vertefeuille did not participate in the consideration or decision on the petition.
The case involved petitioner Frankie Trimmer seeking further review of an Appellate Court decision in a matter against the Commissioner of Correction. The Connecticut Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal. The denial was issued on April 21, 2010. One justice did not participate in the decision. No detailed reasoning for the denial appears in the opinion excerpt.
The case centered on a dispute between Jz, Inc. and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of East Hartford, following an adverse decision by the Appellate Court. The plaintiffs filed a petition seeking certification to appeal the Appellate Court's ruling to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certification. No detailed reasoning was provided in the order, and Justice Vertefeuille did not participate in the decision.
This case involved a dispute between the plaintiffs and the Commissioner of Revenue Services regarding tax matters. The plaintiffs sought further review by filing a petition for certification to appeal the Appellate Court decision reported at 119 Conn. App. 771. The Supreme Court denied the petition, leaving the lower court's ruling intact without further consideration. One justice did not participate in the decision on the petition.
The case concerned petitioner Gregory Johnson’s request for permission to appeal a ruling by the Connecticut Appellate Court in his proceeding against the Commissioner of Correction. The court denied the petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court decision reported at 119 Conn. App. 904. No further explanation or reasoning for the denial was provided in the order, and one justice did not take part in the decision.
This case involves petitioner Rodney Crosby seeking further review of an Appellate Court ruling in a proceeding against the Commissioner of Correction. Crosby filed a petition for certification to appeal the Appellate Court's decision, which had been issued under docket AC 30525. The Supreme Court denied the petition without providing any explanation or analysis. Justice Vertefeuille did not take part in considering or deciding the petition.
This case involved a defendant petitioning the Connecticut Supreme Court for certification to appeal a ruling issued by the Appellate Court in docket AC 29995. The court denied the petition for certification, leaving the Appellate Court decision in place. No further explanation or reasoning for the denial was provided in the order. Justice Vertefeuille did not take part in considering or deciding the petition.
This case concerns a defendant's request for further review of an Appellate Court decision in a criminal matter, specifically seeking certification to appeal the ruling in 119 Conn. App. 392 (AC 30047). The Supreme Court denied the petition for certification. No detailed reasoning or analysis of the underlying issues was provided in the decision. One justice did not participate in considering or deciding the petition.
This case concerns petitioner Daniel Dorce's request for certification to appeal an Appellate Court ruling in his proceeding against the Commissioner of Correction. The Connecticut Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal. The opinion provides no further reasoning for the denial, and Justice Vertefeuille did not participate in considering or deciding the petition.
This case concerns respondent parents who sought review of an Appellate Court decision involving their child, Justin F. The parents, appearing pro se, filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to certify an appeal from the Appellate Court ruling in AC 31728. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certification, leaving the Appellate Court's judgment in place without further review. One justice did not participate in considering or deciding the petition.
The case involved a defendant who had appealed an adverse ruling through the Connecticut Appellate Court and then sought further review by petitioning the state Supreme Court for certification. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court decision reported at 119 Conn. App. 483. No explanation or reasoning for the denial was provided, and one justice did not participate in considering or deciding the petition.
The case involved petitioner Francisco Jimenez seeking certification to appeal a ruling from the Connecticut Appellate Court in a matter against the Commissioner of Correction. The court denied the petition for certification. No specific reasoning was provided in the opinion for the denial. Justice Vertefeuille did not participate in the decision.
This case is a criminal matter in which the defendant sought further review by the Connecticut Supreme Court of an Appellate Court decision reported at 116 Conn. App. 556. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for certification to appeal. One justice did not participate in the consideration or decision on the petition.
This case concerned the dissolution of the marriage between Melinda Crews and Stephen Crews and the enforceability of their 1988 antenuptial agreement. The trial court refused to enforce the agreement under equitable principles from McHugh v. McHugh, but the Appellate Court reversed that ruling and held the agreement enforceable. On further appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court, holding that questions of enforceability of an antenuptial agreement are reviewed under a plenary standard because such agreements are contracts interpreted according to ordinary contract principles. The Court concluded that the trial court had improperly found the agreement unenforceable based on changed economic circumstances and that the agreement should govern the financial orders.
The case involves a landlord-tenant dispute in which Fairchild Heights, Inc. initiated a summary process eviction action against resident Dickal. The Appellate Court had interpreted General Statutes § 21-80a (b)(1) in a manner that permitted a property owner to overcome the presumption of retaliatory eviction when the eviction is based on the resident's violation of a material term in the rental agreement. The defendants sought further review, and the Connecticut Supreme Court granted their petition for certification, but limited the appeal to the narrow question of whether the Appellate Court correctly interpreted the statute in that way. The court made no ruling on the underlying merits or facts of the eviction claim itself.