The case concerned Karin Aparo's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to prevent the State of Connecticut from retrying her on a charge of conspiracy to commit murder in her mother's death. She had been acquitted by jury of the related charge of murder as an accessory but the jury deadlocked on the conspiracy count, leading to a mistrial and the state's intent to retry. The court granted the petition. The core reasoning was that collateral estoppel arising from the acquittal on the accessory charge necessarily resolved an essential element of the conspiracy charge in the petitioner's favor, and that double jeopardy and due process principles barred retrial based on the prior jury votes and evidentiary limitations from the Connecticut Supreme Court's earlier ruling.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the State of Connecticut and three towns seeking to block the Secretary of the Interior from taking about 245 acres of land into federal trust for the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act, the Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement Act, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Secretary moved to dismiss those claims for failure to join the Tribe as an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, citing the Tribe's sovereign immunity. The court denied the motion, holding that the United States could adequately represent the Tribe's interests as trust beneficiary because the plaintiffs challenged only the Secretary's administrative compliance with federal statutes and regulations rather than the Tribe's ownership of the land. The decision relied on the special government-to-government relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, which creates an exception to standard indispensable-party analysis when federal defendants can protect tribal interests.

federal powerpropertyprocedure

The case involved the Secretary of Labor suing Southern New England Telecommunications Corp. (SNET) under the Fair Labor Standards Act for allegedly requiring outside craft employees, such as cable splicers and repairers, to remain at job sites and perform uncompensated work during their unpaid lunch periods, along with related record-keeping failures. The court conducted a trial and issued detailed findings of fact based on employee testimony, company memoranda, and stipulations, establishing that SNET maintained a policy treating employees as on-duty during lunches to ensure safety, security, and availability. These findings described job categories, work sites, and evidence that employees could not leave or fully disengage during the half-hour breaks. The court limited the claims to exclude certain installation work and days when employees took breaks en route. The opinion constitutes the court's Rule 52(a) findings to support determinations on liability for overtime and damages.

labor & employment

The case involved the FDIC, as receiver for a bank, seeking to foreclose on a mortgage securing a $3.8 million note from defendant Howard Shoreline Associates on property in Connecticut. After the court granted summary judgment of strict foreclosure and law days expired in April 1994, vesting title in the FDIC, one partner filed for bankruptcy, prompting the FDIC to move to reopen the judgment due to the automatic stay and environmental issues on the property. The court denied the motion to reopen. It reasoned that the bankruptcy filing by a partner did not stay the running of the redemption period or prevent title from vesting because a partnership is a separate legal entity under Connecticut law, the property was not part of the partner's personal bankruptcy estate, and the mere passage of time to extinguish redemption rights did not constitute an "act" prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provisions.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from the Connecticut State Police's policy of automatically recording all incoming and outgoing calls at state barracks from 1978 to 1989, which led to consolidated class action lawsuits by affected callers and employees alleging violations of federal and state constitutional and statutory rights, including wiretap laws. The court certified a plaintiff class and subclass, and after discovery, addressed various dispositive motions in this ruling. The opinion outlines undisputed facts about the recording systems' installation, operation, and purposes, such as capturing emergency calls and monitoring personnel, while noting technical connections via telephone company equipment and couplers. Core legal analysis examines whether the recordings constituted interceptions under Title III and the Connecticut Wiretap Act, highlighting differences in statutory definitions, consent requirements, and exceptions for law enforcement or ordinary course of business, as well as issues of indemnification and subject matter jurisdiction over individual defendants.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involves the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), acting as receiver for failed banks, seeking a judgment of strict foreclosure on commercial property mortgaged by M.F.P. Realty Associates after the borrower defaulted on a loan originally from the Connecticut Bank and Trust Company. The court granted the FDIC's motion for judgment of strict foreclosure following the entry of defaults against the defendants, determining the outstanding debt and the property's value. The core reasoning centered on the defendants' failure to raise genuine issues of material fact disputing the debt calculation and the FDIC's entitlement to foreclose as the holder of the mortgage, though certain interest claims were disallowed due to insufficient evidence on applicable rates.

propertybusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a lawsuit by Suzanne Bailey-Gates, as executrix of her husband's estate and individually, against Aetna Life Insurance Company for claims including negligence, breach of contract, violations of CUTPA and CUIPA, and reckless indifference, stemming from Aetna's nurse directing the release of her husband from a mental health facility, after which he committed suicide. The defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing preemption by ERISA, while the plaintiff moved to remand. The court denied the motion to remand and granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the state law claims relate to an employee benefit plan and are thus preempted by ERISA's broad preemption provision under 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a).

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal powertorts & liability

The case was a diversity action in which former Stamford police officer Frederic Sargeant sued former Mayor Thom Serrani for invasion of privacy based on the mayor's public statements criticizing Sargeant's extended paid sick leave following a traumatic on-duty incident that caused PTSD. A jury found Serrani liable and awarded Sargeant $20,000 in damages. Serrani moved for a new trial, arguing errors in evidentiary rulings and jury instructions as well as that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court denied the motion, holding that the instructions and rulings were proper, that the evidence supported the verdict, and that First Amendment considerations did not require a different outcome.

free speechtorts & liability

This case involved a diversity action for breach of contract arising from a 1988 stock purchase agreement under which defendant agreed to buy plaintiff's shares in Marketing Corporation of America but stopped payments after partially performing. Following arbitration under AAA rules that resulted in an award of $851,760 plus interest to plaintiff and denial of defendant's counterclaim, the parties filed post-arbitration motions: defendant sought to vacate the award citing evident partiality due to the arbitrator's unrelated prior lawsuit against his former employer, while plaintiff moved to confirm the award and correct a misspelling. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to vacate and granting the motions to confirm and correct, a ruling that the district judge affirmed and adopted. The core reasoning was that the arbitrator's prior litigation did not demonstrate evident partiality under the Federal Arbitration Act, as the matter was unrelated to the parties or issues here and any potential objection had been waived by failure to raise it timely during the proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, the Resolution Trust Corporation, acting as receiver for the failed federally chartered Charter Federal Savings and Loan Association, sued seven former directors for negligence, gross negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty based on their authorization of unsafe loans that caused over $5.7 million in losses. The defendants moved to dismiss the negligence and fiduciary duty counts, arguing that section 1821(k) of FIRREA preempts claims based on standards lower than gross negligence. After de novo review, the court sustained the objections, granted the motions to dismiss Counts One and Three, and held that federal law exclusively governs liability for directors of federally chartered institutions. The court reasoned that the statute establishes gross negligence as the minimum standard for personal liability in RTC actions, that federal common law applies under the internal affairs doctrine rather than state law, and that section 1821(k) preempts any federal common law permitting lesser degrees of fault.

business & regulatoryfederal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

In United States v. Dodge, the defendant was arrested and his home searched pursuant to warrants based on a complaint charging conspiracy to receive and possess an unregistered silencer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, along with related items like a pipe bomb. He moved to suppress post-arrest statements made before Miranda warnings and tangible evidence seized during the search, arguing violations of Miranda and insufficient particularity or probable cause for the warrants. The court denied the motion to suppress statements, holding that the officer's pre-Miranda question about the bomb's location fell under the public safety exception established in New York v. Quarles because it addressed an imminent threat. The motion to suppress tangible evidence was denied without prejudice after the government conceded it would not offer the items in its case-in-chief.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In United States v. Dodge, defendants Dodge and Borkoski were charged under the National Firearms Act with conspiracy to receive and possess an unregistered silencer and pipe bomb, as well as actual receipt and possession of those items, stemming from a government reverse sting operation in which agents transferred the firearms to them. The defendants moved to dismiss the superseding indictment, arguing that the NFA's registration requirements were unconstitutional as applied because no transfer tax was paid and the requirements lacked a valid revenue-collection basis, and that the government's conduct in the sting violated due process. The court denied both motions. It reasoned that the NFA's registration duties remain enforceable regardless of whether a tax was collected in the transaction, that precedents limiting the NFA to machine guns did not apply to silencers or pipe bombs, and that the government's actions did not rise to the level of outrageous conduct that would violate fundamental fairness under the Due Process Clause.

gunscriminal lawfederal powertaxes

This case involved plaintiffs with asthma and lupus who claimed that secondhand smoke in McDonald's restaurants prevented them from accessing these public accommodations, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They sought a court order banning smoking in all McDonald's restaurants nationwide. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the ADA requires reasonable modifications on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket smoking ban, which would not be reasonable given differences in restaurant configurations and local rules. The court noted that while the ADA permits restrictions on smoking, it does not mandate them, and broader policy decisions are left to legislatures or the business itself.

civil rightshealthcarebusiness & regulatory

In this case, Duraflex Sales and Service Corporation supplied precast concrete materials for two of three buildings in a mixed-use condominium project developed by Hemingway Center Limited Partnership but recorded a mechanic's lien on the entire project after Hemingway Center failed to pay part of the contract price. Hemingway Center moved to discharge the lien as to the third building (the Townhouse Building) where Duraflex had provided no materials. The court denied the motion, finding probable cause that the lien was valid on all three structures. The reasoning centered on Connecticut's amended mechanic's lien statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-33(a)), which permits liens for site improvements and plot development without requiring that materials be incorporated into every building; because the structural materials enhanced common elements benefiting all condominium owners under state condominium law, the lien could encompass the entire project.

property

The case involves the pretrial detention of defendant William E. Dodge, who was charged with conspiracy to possess an unregistered silencer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and possession of an unregistered silencer and pipe bomb in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871. Following de novo review of the magistrate judge's detention order, the district court affirmed the order, finding that the charges constitute crimes of violence under the Bail Reform Act, that the defendant poses a serious risk of flight, and that he presents an unreasonable danger to prospective witnesses, jurors, or the community. The court reasoned that possession of such inherently dangerous weapons presents a substantial risk of physical force by its nature, the defendant's history of violating court orders and weak community ties create a substantial flight risk that no conditions could reasonably mitigate, and clear and convincing evidence supported the danger finding.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

This case is a federal criminal prosecution of Michael G. Morgan, former president of Charter Federal Savings and Loan, for misapplication of bank funds and bank fraud arising from real estate transactions and loans involving affiliated entities in the mid-1980s. Morgan moved to dismiss the indictment on grounds that it violated double jeopardy based on a prior OTS administrative proceeding, relied on an improper ten-year statute of limitations or exceeded the five-year limit, resulted from excessive hearsay before the grand jury, and that count one was defective due to inadequate grand jury instructions; he also sought disclosure of grand jury minutes. The district court denied the motion in its entirety. The court reasoned that the earlier OTS action was not punitive for double jeopardy purposes, that FIRREA's ten-year limitations period applied to the charged offenses, and that Morgan failed to show grounds for dismissal or disclosure based on hearsay or instructional deficiencies.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this diversity action, plaintiff Joan Borawick sued her aunt and uncle for compensatory and punitive damages, alleging they sexually assaulted and molested her as a child in 1961 and 1964. Defendants moved in limine to exclude all hypnotically refreshed testimony from evidence on grounds of unreliability. The magistrate judge reserved decision pending further submissions and applied the Second Circuit's balancing test from United States v. Williams, weighing probative value and reliability against risks of prejudice and confusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, rather than the stricter Frye standard. On reconsideration, the district court affirmed the ruling but clarified that the burden of establishing admissibility is by a preponderance of the evidence. The court ultimately adopted this approach to determine whether the post-hypnosis recollections were sufficiently reliable for trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Truck-A-Tune, Inc. filed a federal interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 seeking to resolve conflicting claims to a valuable 1936 Mercedes automobile stored at its Connecticut inn, after the original owner's 1989 death led to competing state-court proceedings in New York (appointing Ré as ancillary administrator) and Connecticut (appointing Hopper as temporary administrator) that both directed the plaintiff to turn over the car. The plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the state actions and to deposit the vehicle with the court while determining title and limiting its own liability. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion and dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the statutory interpleader requirements were not satisfied and that the Anti-Injunction Act barred staying the ongoing state proceedings.

procedureproperty

The case involved plaintiffs who were removed from the Republican enrollment list in Derby, Connecticut, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-60 after allegedly running as candidates against the party's endorsed individuals; they sued the local Republican registrar and town chairman in state court, claiming the statute violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of association and due process, along with related state-law claims. The action was removed to federal court, where defendants moved to dismiss. The court construed the motion as one under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and dismissed the federal claims, holding that political parties possess a reciprocal right to define their membership and exclude those whose actions conflict with party principles, that the statute imposes only reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions not requiring strict scrutiny, and that precedent supports a party's ability to enforce loyalty requirements. The court then declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and remanded them to Connecticut Superior Court.

electionsfree speechcivil rights

The case concerned plaintiff Linda Hamilton's challenge to an IRS levy on residential property in New Haven, Connecticut, under 26 U.S.C. § 7426(a)(1), to collect taxes owed by Brenda Jones Agnew. Hamilton claimed ownership through an unrecorded quitclaim deed executed by Jones in 1983, after Hamilton paid the purchase price, mortgage, taxes, and maintenance costs while living in the home; Jones held only nominal title and never resided there or contributed funds. The government argued that Connecticut's recording statute protected its levy because the deed was unrecorded at the time of seizure. The court found as fact that Jones lacked any beneficial ownership interest and concluded that the property was not subject to levy for Jones's tax liabilities, rendering the government's enforcement action wrongful.

taxespropertyfederal power