Week of March 5, 2018

Welcome to our Supreme and Appellate Court summaries webpage. On this page, I provide abbreviated summaries of decisions from the Connecticut Appellate Courts which highlight important issues and developments in Connecticut law, and provide practical practice pointers to litigants. I have been summarizing these court decisions internally for our firm for more than 10 years, and providing relevant highlights to my municipal and insurance practice clients for almost as long. It was suggested that a wider audience might appreciate brief summaries of recent rulings that condense often long and confusing decisions down to their basic elements. These summaries are limited to the civil litigation decisions. I may from time to time add commentary, and may even criticize a decision’s reasoning. Such commentary is solely my own personal opinion. Pullman & Comley’s Appellate Practice Group of which I am a member includes experienced appellate advocates in almost every area of the law.  Should you have a need to consult about a potential appeal, please email me at emccreery@pullcom.com. I hope the reader finds these summaries helpful. – Edward P. McCreery

Posted March 7, 2018

Appellate Court Advance Release Opinions:

AC38699, AC38792, AC38793 - Rutter v. Janis

Car dealership was not liable for customer’s accident in newly purchased car while using plates loaned by the dealership because state statute protects the dealership in such situations for up to 30 days, and while this accident happened on the 31st day, the general rule is that when a statute applies a deadline, you do not count the first day of the transaction.

Claim for invasion of privacy by police officer against the police chief for ordering him to go see a psychiatrist failed because even if it was an intrusion the chief had the authority to order a medical exam of any officer to determine fitness and so the directive could not be deemed offensive by a reasonable person.

  • AC39319 - ARC Capital, LLC v. Asia Pacific Ltd.

Company could enforce a Cayman Island judgment in Connecticut courts and was not barred by Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code which did not apply to this situation.

Military pension should have been treated as property, not income, in a divorce.

Practice Areas

Jump to Page