The case involves a breach of contract action brought by plastic surgeon Charles D. Gianetti against Norwalk Hospital after the hospital failed to renew his clinical privileges for 1984 without following the procedural requirements in its bylaws. The trial court found the hospital liable and, following a hearing in damages, awarded the plaintiff compensation as a lost volume seller based on his lost income from hospital services without requiring mitigation from his other work. On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the lost volume seller determination, the sufficiency of evidence for damages from 1984 through 1988, the exclusion of certain evidence, and the denial of prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. The court rejected the hospital's challenges to the damages calculation and the plaintiff's claims seeking additional relief.
In State v. Sheriff, bail bondsman Flavio Bail Bonds sought release from its obligation on $125,000 in surety bonds after criminal defendant David Sheriff, a Jamaican national, failed to appear for trial and fled to Jamaica. The trial court forfeited the bonds and denied Flavio's petition under Practice Book § 38-23, finding no good cause to relieve the surety. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the common-law standard from Taylor v. Taintor applies, under which a surety is released only if performance is rendered impossible by an act of God, the obligee, or the law; the state's decision not to pursue extradition did not meet this test, and the court lacked authority to compromise the bond amount rather than release the obligation entirely. The writ of error was dismissed.
This case involves a plaintiff suing Singer Asset Finance Company for allegedly aiding and abetting codefendant attorneys in breaching their fiduciary duties, along with related claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Appellate Court had ruled that the allegations were insufficient to toll the statute of limitations via the continuous course of conduct doctrine and that CUTPA's three-year limitations period could not be tolled. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal but limited review to those two specific issues regarding tolling and the statutes of limitations.
The case involved disputes over the management of a family partnership and trusts, with claims including breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and unfair trade practices. The central issue was whether the plaintiffs' attorney had apparent authority to make and bind the plaintiffs to a global settlement offer during negotiations. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found that the attorney had such authority based on the plaintiffs' conduct and the attorney's assurances to opposing counsel, enforcing the agreement. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that the plaintiffs had no constitutional right to a jury trial on the equitable motions to enforce the settlement.
The case involved a dispute among three brothers over their late father's estate and assets, in which the plaintiffs alleged that their brother (as trustee, executor, and general partner) had improperly transferred most of the assets into a limited partnership he controlled, breaching fiduciary duties and engaging in statutory theft under General Statutes § 52-564, among other claims. The trial court and Appellate Court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard to the statutory theft claim, but the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard governs such claims. The court reasoned from prior precedent, including Kilduff v. Adams, Inc. and Freeman v. Alamo Management Co., that civil actions for multiple damages under theft statutes do not carry the heightened burden traditionally applied to common-law fraud, and that the statute's text and policy support the lower standard.
The case Maturo v. Maturo concerned the dissolution of a long marriage between Laura E. Maturo and Frank A. Maturo, parents of twin minor children, and the trial court's financial orders including alimony, child support, and division of nearly $18 million in marital assets. The defendant appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the plaintiff a fixed percentage of his annual net cash bonus as child support, a percentage of tax refunds as additional alimony and child support, and an unequal division of assets. The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed in part the trial court's judgment, holding that the percentage-based child support order was improper because it failed to follow statutory guidelines when the defendant's income exceeded the schedule range, while also considering factors such as the children's best interests under General Statutes §§ 46b-84 and 46b-56.