Leo Parskey

This case involved a dispute over ownership of a 200-acre Connecticut estate that the defendant corporation sold to the plaintiffs while facing foreclosure, with the defendants later claiming the transaction was actually a usurious loan disguised as a sale and option to repurchase, entitling them to an equitable mortgage. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the defendants' interference with the property and exclusive possession, while the defendants raised procedural challenges including the lack of a bond for non-resident plaintiffs and sought a jury trial. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, struck the case from the jury docket, and ruled for the plaintiffs on the merits after finding the deal was an arm's-length sale. The core reasoning was that the defendants failed to prove the equitable mortgage defense, the transaction was executed with legal representation on both sides, and procedural requirements were satisfied by amendment.

propertyprocedure

The case involves multiple consolidated appeals by the defendant husband in a post-1971 divorce proceeding, challenging contempt orders, a $1000 fine, and awards of counsel fees and appeal allowances to the plaintiff wife arising from his repeated entries onto the jointly owned family home at 33 Lolly Lane in violation of a September 1972 court order. The court affirmed the contempt adjudications and related financial orders while denying the defendant's motions to reargue, modify, or vacate prior rulings. Review of contempt orders is limited to questions of jurisdiction and whether the acts could constitute contempt; claims of laches and vagueness were rejected because the order was unambiguous and the plaintiff had pursued multiple prior successful contempt motions without inexcusable delay.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a real estate salesman who sued his former employer agency for a share of commissions from sales of a property he had helped list and show, based on an oral or written employment agreement. The trial court applied General Statutes § 20-325a(b), which requires specific written terms including addresses for actions to recover real estate commissions, and entered judgment for the defendant because the employment contract omitted the plaintiff's address. On appeal, the court reversed and ordered a new trial, holding that the statute applies only to listing agreements between agencies and property owners, not to separate internal employment contracts for dividing commissions already paid to the agency. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's suit arose from his employment relationship and sought a division of joint efforts, rather than recovery of a commission arising out of a real estate transaction under the statute.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentproperty

The case involved a two-year-old plaintiff mauled by a leopard at the Bridgeport Zoo, leading to negligence claims against the zoo director and an employee for failing to address known hazards such as an inadequate barrier allowing children to crawl underneath, prior unreported incidents, and insufficient staffing, with additional claims against the city for indemnity, nuisance, and absolute liability. The trial court directed a verdict for the city on absolute liability but submitted the remaining counts to the jury, which returned verdicts for the plaintiffs totaling $140,000 (later reduced by remittitur). On appeal, the court found no error and affirmed, concluding that the evidence supported the negligence findings given the defendants' duties regarding a wild animal and the feasibility of simple precautions like adding a protective bar.

torts & liability

In State v. McCalpine, the defendants were convicted after a jury trial of first-degree robbery and second-degree kidnapping arising from an incident in which they and a third person robbed a limousine driver at gunpoint in a hotel room after a lengthy trip from New York. On appeal, the defendants claimed the trial court erred in its jury instructions by referencing a knife (not charged in the information), by confusing the standards for principal and accessory liability, and by failing to instruct that any kidnapping must be more than incidental to the robbery. The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the information, the evidence presented at trial about the knife, and the specific language of the charge regarding aiding and abetting under General Statutes § 53a-8. The court analyzed whether any variance or instructional omission prejudiced the defendants or misstated the elements of the offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a contract for the construction and sale of a single-family home, where the plaintiffs sued Jalich Homes, Inc. and its president individually for breach of contract and express and implied warranties after problems arose with the property. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute, vacated an earlier default order due to lack of jurisdiction, denied the plaintiffs' eve-of-trial motion to amend the complaint to add new claims like fraud and products liability, and entered judgment for damages only against the corporation, not the individual defendant. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the dismissal was a final judgment depriving the court of jurisdiction until restored, that the denial of amendment was a proper exercise of discretion given the delay and prejudice, and that the plaintiffs did not establish individual liability or show clear error in the damage award.

propertyprocedure