The case involved a class action by state employee Ronald Gold against former Governor John Rowland, the state of Connecticut, and several Anthem insurance entities, alleging that the state improperly received approximately 1.6 million shares of Anthem stock issued during a 2001 demutualization that should have been distributed to the plaintiff and other state employees covered under a group health policy. The trial court dismissed most claims against the state on sovereign immunity grounds but allowed constitutional claims for an unconstitutional taking and due process violations under the Connecticut constitution, as well as interpleader claims, to proceed. On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the denial of dismissal for the constitutional claims, holding that they were barred, determined that the insurance defendants lacked standing for their cross-appeal, and affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's constructive and resulting trust claims. The core reasoning centered on the application of sovereign immunity to bar constitutional claims seeking recovery of the stock from the state and the lack of a colorable basis for trust remedies against the state.
The case concerned a challenge to the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of a site plan for a retail and office development on property owned by Evergreen Walk, LLC, which relied in part on access easements over town land and on a previously approved general plan of development. The plaintiff, an adjacent property owner, appealed to the trial court, claiming the approval was invalid because the easements had not yet been granted (and were later ruled invalid) and because the general plan approval itself was unlawful. The trial court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the plaintiff was aggrieved but that the approval was valid. On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed that the plaintiff was aggrieved and that the lack of granted easements at the time of approval did not invalidate it, but reversed the judgment because the commission's prior approval of the general plan of development was unlawful and could not support the site plan.
This case involved plaintiffs who intervened in proceedings before the Inland Wetlands Commission of Orange and appealed its decision granting Stew Leonard's a permit to develop a commercial site including a dairy store and related facilities on property containing regulated wetlands. The trial court denied the appeal, finding the commission's decision supported by substantial evidence despite conditions requiring additional post-decision submissions. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding that the decision lacked substantial evidence because the commission had not determined compliance with state erosion control regulations and other requirements before granting the permit. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs had standing as intervenors under section 22a-19 and that the trial court's judgment was appealable despite remand orders for further proceedings. The core reasoning focused on the statutory requirement that permit conditions cannot substitute for the commission's initial finding of compliance with wetlands protections.
The case involved a taxpayer's challenge to the Town of South Windsor's grant of easements over parcels of land it received from the state to a private developer for a commercial project, alleging that the conveyance violated procedural requirements in the town charter such as public hearings and referendums. The trial court issued a declaratory ruling that the initial easement was void but then dismissed the complaint as moot after the town and developer entered a new agreement concerning use of the property. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal, concluding that the action was not moot and that the subsequent agreement constituted a conveyance of real property interests that triggered the charter's procedural mandates.
The case involved a workplace injury claim by Marcin Mazurek against Handy Rent-All Center and Sperry Rail Service after he fell from mobile scaffolding rented by his employer's client, Sperry, from Handy; the complaint alleged negligence and recklessness for failure to warn about using ladders on the scaffolding, among other specifications. The trial court granted summary judgment to Handy on the ground that it owed no duty to the plaintiff and partial summary judgment to Sperry on control-of-workplace issues. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Handy, reasoning that any potential duty was satisfied by warnings and that product liability act exclusivity provisions barred the negligence claims, while also dismissing the appeal as to Sperry because a partial summary judgment that does not dispose of an entire count is not a final judgment for appellate purposes.
The case involved a Connecticut worker injured while descending into the hold of a ship docked in New Haven harbor who sought workers' compensation benefits under both the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and the state Workers' Compensation Act. The compensation commissioner dismissed the state claim for lack of jurisdiction, and the review board affirmed, relying on precedent that injuries on navigable waters fall under exclusive federal authority. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding that the state and federal governments have concurrent jurisdiction over the claim. The court reasoned that the employer and employee were locally based, the employment contract was performed partly within the state, and later federal case law had modified the strict rule of exclusive federal jurisdiction for certain maritime injuries occurring on a state's territorial waters.