The Top 10 for 2013

Herewith is Horton’s list of the top 10 decisions of the Connecticut Supreme Court in 2013:

4 Criminal: State v. Medrano, 308 Conn. 604 (trial courts ordered not to instruct jurors to consider the interest of a testifying defendant in the outcome of the case); State v. Sanchez, 308 Conn. 64 (extensive discussion of plain error rule); State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242 (lesser included conviction vacated on conviction of greater included offense); and Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 308 Conn. 463 (arraignment is a critical stage in criminal proceedings, and thus the right to counsel attaches).

2 Family: Tanzman v. Meurer, 309 Conn. 105 (when basing financial award on earning capacity, that capacity must be specified); and In re Elvin G., 308 Conn. 194 (parental rights cannot be terminated on failing to rehabilitate unless parent first receives court-ordered steps to guide parent to rehabilitation).

2 Torts: Doe v. St. Francis Hospital & Medical Center, 309 Conn. 146 (duty to protect another under Restatement § 302B); and Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (litigation privilege shielding lawyers in judicial proceedings broadened).

2 Other: A. Gallo & Co. v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 309 Conn. 810 (drink distributors have no vested property interest in certain unclaimed bottle deposits); and Lopez v. Board of Education, 310 Conn. 576 (quo warranto action challenging qualifications of Bridgeport superintendent improper where administrative proceedings before State Board of Education existed even though no subsequent appeal to court provided).

Just missing the cut are Investment Associates v. Summit Associates, Inc., 309 Conn. 840, concerning revival of an unsatisfied judgment; Dowling v. Szymczyk, 309 Conn. 390, concerning income over the child support guidelines; Chief Investment Officer v. Computers Plus Center, Inc., 310 Conn. 60, concerning the state’s immunity from counterclaim); and State v. AFSCME Council 4, Local 39, 309 Conn. 519, reversing an arbitration award reinstating a state employee who sexually harassed a fellow employee.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *