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

The case involved defendant David Lasher, who was arrested on charges of conspiracy to sell marijuana and possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle and later entered a guilty plea to the conspiracy charge as part of plea bargaining. Prior to sentencing, the defendant moved to withdraw the plea under Practice Book § 721(2), claiming that he and his attorney had misunderstood the terms of the agreement and expected a suspended sentence tied to participation in a drug dependency program. The trial court denied the motion after reviewing the plea transcript, finding that the defendant had been properly advised of his rights, the nature of the charge, possible penalties, and the state's non-binding recommendations, and that the plea was voluntary and intelligent. The court concluded that the record did not establish involuntariness or lack of knowledge sufficient to permit withdrawal, and it imposed a sentence of one and one-half to three years while entering a nolle on the weapons charge.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved former New Haven police officers seeking indemnification from the city for attorneys' fees incurred in defending a federal lawsuit alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and wiretapping from 1963 to 1971. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs under General Statutes § 7-101a, but the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding that neither § 7-101a nor § 7-465 applied retroactively to the officers' pre-enactment conduct. The court reasoned that the 1977 amendment to § 7-101a extending coverage to municipal employees and the 1975 amendment to § 7-465 covering civil rights infringements were substantive changes that impose new obligations and thus apply only prospectively, as the underlying conduct predated the statutes' effective dates covering such matters.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a lawsuit by a builder against a licensed septic system installer for damages from two defective septic tanks installed on residential properties. The trial court awarded the plaintiff $5412 in repair costs after finding the defendant negligent in failing to follow the state public health code and using poor workmanship. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the defendant owed a duty of care arising from the contract and his profession, which he breached, proximately causing the system failures, and that repair costs were an appropriate measure of damages.

torts & liability

This case involved an appeal by the defendant husband challenging the trial court's order requiring him to transfer his interest in the jointly held family home to the plaintiff wife in a divorce proceeding. The court affirmed the order, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The decision was based on evaluating all relevant financial factors, including child custody and support orders, the parties' incomes, and the responsibilities associated with the mortgage and maintenance of the home. The court noted that property assignments must consider the length of the marriage, contributions, and future opportunities, and emphasized that broad discretion is needed in family matters without fixed guidelines.

family law

This case involves disputes between stockbroker Merrill Lynch and client Morton Cole over an agreement for Cole to sell 5000 shares of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company stock to Merrill Lynch at $51.50 per share, with an option for additional shares that was not exercised. After Cole refused to deliver the shares, Merrill Lynch purchased replacement shares at a higher price and sued Cole for breach of contract, while Cole sued Merrill Lynch for breach of contract, fraud, and related claims. The trial court ruled in favor of Merrill Lynch on both the court-tried and jury-tried cases, awarding damages of $8572.23 plus interest, based on findings that a valid contract existed and Cole failed to perform his delivery obligation.

business & regulatory

The case involved a defendant charged with perjury under Connecticut law who sought accelerated rehabilitation, a pretrial diversionary program allowing suspension of prosecution and potential dismissal of charges upon successful completion. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. The Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the denial was an interlocutory order rather than a final judgment, which in criminal cases occurs upon imposition of sentence. The court reasoned that appeals from such rulings are generally prohibited to avoid piecemeal review, and this case did not qualify for narrow exceptions where an asserted right would be irreparably lost without immediate review, as the program does not create a right not to be tried or implicate privacy interests.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a property owner seeking to discharge a 1958 mortgage and related lis pendens under General Statutes § 49-13 after more than seventeen years of undisturbed possession with no payments or acknowledgments of the debt. The trial court granted the discharge, awarded damages, and declared the note void as usurious under §§ 37-5 and 37-9, even though those issues had not been raised in the pleadings. On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to address the usury claim because it was not properly pleaded and lacked jurisdiction under § 49-13 because the mortgage's validity remained in dispute. The court therefore reversed the judgment discharging the mortgage and lis pendens.

propertyprocedure

The case involved defendants James Haskins and Michael Alston, who along with a codefendant were charged in state court with armed robbery, first-degree assault, and second-degree kidnapping arising from a 1974 bank robbery in New Haven during which police officers were shot and wounded. The defendants had already been convicted and sentenced in federal court for related bank robbery offenses; in the state proceeding the robbery counts were dismissed as to Haskins and Alston, they were acquitted of kidnapping, and they were convicted of the two assault counts, after which they received consecutive state sentences. On appeal Haskins and Alston raised multiple claims concerning the jury array's representativeness, joinder and severance, evidentiary rulings, cross-examination limits, and other trial procedures, while the state appealed the dismissal of the robbery charges; the court began its analysis by reciting the facts and outlining the standards for fair-cross-section jury challenges under federal precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved landowners seeking permits from the Middlebury conservation commission (as the local inland wetlands agency) and planning and zoning commission to install recharge basins on regulated wetland property in order to test existing wells for a potential water supply project. After the commissions refused to process the applications until the landowners first obtained approval from the Pomperaug Valley water authority, the plaintiffs obtained a trial court injunction compelling the commissions to hold hearings and restraining the first selectman and water authority from interfering. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the water authority lacked power to act on the proposal because it had not yet published a required regional water supply plan, that injunctive relief was appropriate despite the theoretical availability of mandamus, and that any error in enjoining the first selectman individually was harmless. The court rejected the defendants' claims that the landowners were required to proceed before the water authority first or that mandamus was the exclusive remedy.

environmentpropertyprocedure

The case concerned whether the estate of a woman killed by a drunk driver could sue a town and its police officer for negligence after the officer stopped the driver for speeding and erratic driving but did not arrest him for violating motor vehicle laws. The trial court granted summary judgment to the town, and the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the officer's duty to enforce the statutes was a public duty owed to the community at large rather than a specific duty to the decedent, so any breach could not support a private negligence action. The decision relied on the distinction between public and private duties of officials, under which failures to perform public duties must be redressed through public means rather than individual lawsuits.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

This case involved a divorce action in which the plaintiff wife sought dissolution of the marriage along with property division, alimony, child support, and counsel fees. The trial court dissolved the marriage, awarded custody and support to the plaintiff, transferred the defendant's interest in the couple's travel business to the plaintiff, ordered temporary alimony and severance pay to the defendant, and allocated escrow funds from the sale of the marital home to the defendant. On appeal, the defendant challenged the order of reference to a state referee, the size of the property and monetary awards, and the counsel fees award. The appellate court affirmed the decree, reasoning that the property division and related orders created a balanced settlement given both parties' contributions to the business and marriage, the plaintiff's role in obtaining financing through her family, and the liquid assets left to the defendant.

family lawproperty

This case is the second appeal in a libel suit brought by Dacey against the Connecticut Bar Association, following a defendant's verdict at retrial after the first judgment was reversed. The plaintiff argued that the trial judge, as a member of the defendant association, was disqualified under General Statutes § 51-39 due to relationship and should have recused. The court held that the statute's relationship provisions required disqualification for membership in the party association, rejecting common-law limits to direct pecuniary interest and prior dicta suggesting membership could never disqualify; because non-member judges were available, the rule of necessity did not apply. It therefore found error, set aside the judgment, and ordered a new trial.

proceduretorts & liability

In this personal injury case arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision, the defendant admitted liability and the trial focused solely on damages, resulting in a jury verdict that the plaintiff sought to set aside. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court prejudiced the damages award by suggesting the defendant admit liability, directing deletion of a property damage claim from the pleadings, and extensively questioning the plaintiff's chiropractic expert witness in a skeptical manner while leaving the defendant's orthopedic experts largely uninterrupted. The appellate court held that the claim regarding the liability suggestion lacked merit because damages awards are compensatory rather than punitive, and the pleading amendment issue was not preserved by objection. It concluded that the trial court's questioning of the key witness could reasonably have undermined credibility in the jury's eyes, and because the plaintiff raised a timely objection after the jury charge without any curative instruction being given, the judgment must be reversed. The court therefore ordered a new trial.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a landlord suing its commercial tenant for breach of a five-year lease after the tenant vacated the premises and stopped paying rent following failed negotiations over a proposed lease assignment. The tenant offered to assign the lease to a new party who would assume obligations for the remaining original term but required the renewal option; the landlord refused consent to the renewal while accepting the assignee for the balance of the term. The trial court denied recovery of unpaid rent and most reletting costs, awarding only minor renovation expenses, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that although the lease permitted the landlord to withhold consent to any assignment without cause, the landlord had a duty to mitigate damages in a breach action and could not reasonably reject an assignment that would have placed it in the same position as if the lease had been fully performed.

propertybusiness & regulatory