The case concerned whether Wilmington Trust Company, as a downstream property owner and intervenor, was entitled to attorney’s fees after the Conservation Commission of Fairfield sued Red 11, LLC for violating the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act by filling and draining protected wetlands without permits. Wilmington had intervened in the administrative and court proceedings under the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act and later joined as a party-plaintiff, alleging additional violations and trespass. The trial court awarded Wilmington $391,967.80 in fees under General Statutes § 22a-44 (b), which allows such fees to the “person which brought such action.” On appeal, the court held that Wilmington qualified as having brought the action through its intervention and claims, and that the fee amount was reasonable given the hours worked, rates, and litigation delays caused by the defendant. The judgment awarding the fees was affirmed.
The case involved the appeal of Denis J. Hickey from his conviction on charges of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child, stemming from incidents with a five-year-old victim. The defendant raised multiple claims on appeal, including the denial of a continuance to obtain private counsel and investigate, the admission of evidence regarding prior uncharged sexual misconduct and hearsay statements, prosecutorial misconduct, double jeopardy violations from consecutive sentences, and the denial of in camera review of the victim's mental health records. The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary and procedural rulings and no violation of the defendant's rights.
The case involved a property owner who sued the Connecticut Department of Transportation and its commissioner for damages from flooding on her land allegedly caused by the state's repaving of an adjacent highway. After the first action was dismissed by nonsuit for the plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with discovery orders and appear for a deposition, she refiled under the accidental failure of suit statute. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the new action, and the Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the statute did not apply because the prior dismissal was based on the plaintiff's willful noncompliance with court orders rather than excusable mistake or a matter of form.
In State v. Lameirao, the defendant appealed his convictions on multiple charges, including attempt to commit risk of injury to a child, risk of injury to a child, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, and operating while his license was suspended, along with violations of probation, after the trial court denied his motion to withdraw guilty pleas and admissions. He argued that the court failed to personally address him as required by Practice Book §§ 39-19 and 39-20 during the plea hearing, provided misleading advisements about the facts constituting the elements of the crimes, and that his pleas were not intelligent and voluntary due to ineffective counsel. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that the plea canvass complied with procedural requirements, the pleas were properly accepted as voluntary and intelligent, and counsel's representation was not ineffective.
In Argentinis v. Fortuna, property owners sued adjoining owners, contractors including self-represented defendant Brian Harte, and others alleging adverse possession of a disputed strip of land, intentional removal of bushes and trees in violation of General Statutes § 52-560, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, and private nuisance from grading and water runoff. After Harte failed to plead, a default was entered against him; he did not attend the subsequent hearing in damages, and the trial court rendered judgment including treble and punitive damages. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment in part, concluding that entry of the default judgment constituted plain error that warranted reversal under the court's supervisory powers to ensure the fair administration of justice, given constraints on latitude for self-represented parties and deficiencies in notice, evidence linking Harte to the acts, and the damages award.
This case concerns the termination of a father's parental rights to his daughter Destiny R. under Connecticut statute § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i), following a finding that the child was neglected and the father failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation. The trial court terminated the rights after determining the father had not complied with specific steps for reunification, remained involved in the criminal justice system, and was reluctant to participate in offered programs. On appeal, the father challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting these findings, but the appellate court affirmed the termination, holding that rehabilitation requires gaining insight and ability to care for the child within a reasonable time, not just completing steps, and that the trial court's conclusions were factually supported.