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.