In Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, a dentist sued the hospital for medical malpractice after a nurse's attempted intravenous line insertion allegedly caused anterior interosseous nerve palsy in his left hand, leading to ongoing impairment. The trial court excluded the plaintiff's expert from testifying about Parsonage Turner Syndrome as an alternative cause due to insufficient disclosure and allowed the defendant's expert to opine on that diagnosis without adequate proof of its reliability under a Porter hearing; the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court's affirmance, holding that these evidentiary rulings constituted harmful error because the excluded testimony formed part of the plaintiff's expert's permitted causation opinion and left the jury with an incomplete view of that testimony, while the defendant's expert's methodology for diagnosing a rare condition lacked demonstrated reliability. The court distinguished prior precedent on harmlessness and clarified requirements for Porter hearings on record-based diagnoses.
In Thibodeau v. American Baptist Churches of Connecticut, the plaintiffs filed a petition seeking permission to appeal a decision issued by the Connecticut Appellate Court in the case reported at 120 Conn. App. 666. The Supreme Court of Connecticut denied the petition for certification to appeal. Justice Katz did not participate in the consideration or decision regarding the petition. As a result, the Appellate Court's ruling remains in effect without further review by the state's highest court.
In Skakel v. State, the petitioner, convicted in 2002 of the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley, filed a petition for a new trial under General Statutes § 52-270 based on alleged newly discovered evidence of third-party culpability, exculpatory facts, and impeachment material. The trial court denied the petition, finding the evidence either not newly discovered, not credible, or unlikely to produce a different result, and the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the standards for newly discovered evidence under State v. Shabazz, concluding the petitioner failed to meet the prerequisites for relief. The decision emphasized the three-year limitations period under § 52-582 and the high bar for granting new trials in criminal cases.
The case Jackson, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Avon concerned a challenge to a decision by the town's planning and zoning commission, which had been reviewed by the Appellate Court. The plaintiffs filed a petition seeking certification to appeal that Appellate Court ruling to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certification. Justice Katz did not participate in considering or deciding the petition, and no further reasoning was provided in the order.
This case involves a criminal prosecution in which the defendant challenged a jury instruction on the materiality of his deposition testimony. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court's ruling. The review is limited to determining whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the defendant waived any challenge to that jury instruction. The court did not decide the merits of the waiver issue or the underlying conviction.
The case concerned a dispute among the surviving partners of Brennan Associates, a real estate partnership formed to manage a shopping center, following the 2004 death of one founding partner whose estate sought to transfer his interest to family members. The plaintiff, another founding partner, sued for a declaratory judgment on the transfer's effects and for an injunction ensuring access to partnership records, while the other partners counterclaimed to expel him. The trial court granted the expulsion request under General Statutes § 34-355(5)(C) on grounds that the plaintiff's conduct made it not reasonably practicable to carry on the business, denied the injunction, and addressed related claims about the deceased partner's interest. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full, upholding the statutory expulsion and the handling of records access and valuation issues under the partnership agreement and applicable statutes.
