Connecticut Supreme Court.

The Connecticut Supreme Court will have nine cases on the docket ranging from criminal law to a wrongful termination and campaign finance law when it opens its sixth session Feb. 20.

Perhaps, though, the most intriguing case will be oral arguments to be heard at 10 a.m. March 1, the court's last case for the session. In Commissioner of Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection v. Freedom of Information Commission, the court is scheduled to hear a request from the Hartford Courant, the state's largest newspaper, which requested the department provide it with documents belonging to Nancy Lanza, mother of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter Adam Lanza. The Connecticut State Police had seized the documents pursuant to search warrants, but the evidence was never used in any criminal prosecution.

Among the documents sought by the Courant are a spiral-bound book written by Adam Lanza titled “The Big Book of Granny,” a photograph of the school's class of 2002-03, and a spreadsheet of rankings of mass murderers, which also included their names, the number of people they killed and the weapons they used.

The Freedom of Information Commission, acting on a request by the paper, sided with the Courant, stating the documents were public records and not exempt from disclosure under the FOI act. The department appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed the FOIC decision. The court found that while the documents in question were public records, they were nonetheless exempt from disclosure. The trial court opined that disclosure of the documents would constitute a significant invasion of the privacy and property rights of the documents' owners (the late Nancy Lanza). The Courant and FOIC appealed.

Adam Lanza killed 20 school children and six educators during the shooting, which occurred in December 2012.

Here is a synopsis of the other cases to be heard by the court:

Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction

This case involves the timeliness of a habeas petition. Eric Kelsey, who was convicted in 2004 of felony murder and conspiracy to commit murder, filed a habeas action challenging his conviction in 2007.

The Connecticut Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and the state Supreme Court denied Kelsey's certification to appeal the Appellate Court's judgment in 2012. Kelsey brought his second habeas action challenging his conviction in March 2017. The Commissioner of Correction argued that Kelsey filed the subsequent petition more than two years after conclusion of the Appellate Court judgment and thus was not timely filed. The habeas court ruled the commissioner's request was premature because the pleadings were not yet closed.

Williams v. City of New Haven

The state's high court is set to consider whether Simon Williams can pursue a wrongful termination claim despite an arbitrator's findings that he was fired for just cause.

Williams filed a complaint with the Workers' Compensation Commission claiming he was wrongfully terminated for exercising his rights under the Workers' Compensation Act. The city of New Haven moved for the claim to be dismissed, noting Williams had unsuccessfully contested his firing in arbitration proceedings brought under his collective bargaining agreement and that the Superior Court had confirmed an arbitrator's finding that the city had just cause to fire him. The trial commissioner denied the motion to dismiss, finding the commission had jurisdiction to consider Williams' claim.

Garner v. Commissioner of Correction and Breton v. Commissioner of Correction

Charles Garner and Randy Breton brought this action arguing that the deletion of a phrase in a state statute could wrongly increase their time in prison.

At the time the men committed their crimes—Garner assaulting a woman and Breton, assaulting three people with a hammer—the general statutes provided that a violent offender “shall be ineligible for parole … until such person has served not less than 85 percent of the definite sentence imposed less any risk reduction credit earned.” In 2013, the phrase “less any reduction credit earned” was deleted from the statute. The petitioners maintained removing the phrase could increase their time served and would be a violation of their constitutional rights.

The trial court found the Legislature never intended that violent offenders be eligible for parole prior to serving 85 percent of their definite sentence—whether or not any risk reduction credit applied. The credit had applied for inmates who had good conduct while in prison, among other things.

Gagliano v. Advanced Specialty Care

In a medical malpractice case, Vivian Gagliano—who was injured during surgery—sued Danbury Hospital and the medical resident who had assisted the attending physician during the surgery.

The jury returned a verdict for Gagliano and her husband and found the medical resident was an actual agent of the hospital and therefore the hospital was liable for his actions. The hospital appealed and the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the judgment on determining that there was insufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found that the hospital has a right to control the resident's performance such that the resident was the hospital's agent for purposes in assisting in the surgery.

The Appellate Court also found that the plaintiff's reliance on the hospital's staff manual to prove an agency relationship with the resident was misplaced as it was unclear whether the manual was intended to regulate surgical procedures.

Cook-Littman v. Board of Selectmen, Town of Fairfield

The Connecticut Supreme Court is set to consider if a trial court had authority to order that a vacant selectman seat be filled by special election under a Connecticut statute.

The case stems from Republican Selectman Laurie McArdle resigning from her post as selectman in Fairfield on Dec. 1, 2016. The remaining members of the Board of Selectmen subsequently voted to appoint Republican Edward Bateson III to serve the remaining three years of McArdle's term. The plaintiffs brought suit against the town and Board of Selectmen seeking a trial court order on a special election for filling the McArdle seat. A special election took place on June 6, 2017, and Bateson lost.

On appeal, the defendants are asking the state's high court to reverse the trial court's judgment, void the results of the special election, and remand the case to the trial court to restore Bateson to the post of Fairfield selectman.

Tannone v. Amica Mutual Insurance and Tannone v. Amica Mutual Insurance

In this case the court is set to weigh insurance policy provisions excluding underinsured motorist coverage for vehicles owned by self-insured persons.

The Tannones were struck and injured by a rental car owned by Enterprise Rent-A-Car, a self-insured entity. After exhausting the insurance coverage of the car's renter and driver, the plaintiffs brought action against their automobile liability insurer, Amica Mutual Insurance Co., seeking underinsured motorist benefits.

The actions were consolidated and the defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiffs were not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits because their policies contained a provision excluding vehicles owned by “self-insurers” from the definition of “underinsured motor vehicle” for coverage purposes. The trial court agreed and rendered summary judgment in favor of Amica, ruling that the policy exclusion was valid under state law and that it barred the plaintiff's recovery of underinsured motorist benefits.

Town of Ledyard v. WMS Gaming

The state's high court is set to consider whether the Connecticut Appellate Court properly dismissed an appeal from judgment awarding attorney fees for lack of jurisdiction where the amount of the fee award hadn't been determined.

The town of Ledyard brought action to collect unpaid personal property taxes that it had imposed on slot machines the defendant company owned and leased to the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation for use in its gaming facilities.

After a federal court ruled in a separate action brought by the tribal nation that the town's authority to impose the taxes was not pre-empted by any federal law, the parties to the state action executed a stipulation agreeing that the defendant had tendered payment to the town for all outstanding taxes, accrued interest and accrued penalties.

The parties also agreed the town was entitled to reasonable attorney fees incurred in pursuing the state action. The parties, however, disputed whether the defendant was liable under the statute for attorney fees incurred by the town in defense of the federal action to which the defendant was not a party.

The trial court ruled the defendant was liable for the federal action attorney fees and indicated a hearing would be set to determine the amount of those attorney fees. WMS filed an appeal from the ruling before the trial court determined the amount of federal action attorney fees to which the town is entitled. The town moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming the defendant had not appealed from a final judgment.

The Connecticut Appellate Court granted Ledyard's motion and dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

State v. Newton II

The state's high court is scheduled to eye a judge's instruction in a criminal prosecution for a campaign finance violation.

As a candidate for state senator from the 23rd District in 2012, Ernest Newton II was eligible to take part in the Citizens' Election Program, which stated he could receive $80,550 in state funds for his campaign if he raised $15,000 in qualifying contributions. Newton applied for funds under the program and filed documents reporting his campaign had raised $15,375 in qualifying contributions, according to court papers.

In July 2012, the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) called the treasurer of Newton's campaign to notify her the campaign had made an error and was $490 short of the mark for qualifying funds. The treasurer called back soon after reporting she found $500 in cash and five contribution forms on her desk. The SEEC deemed the campaign qualified for funds and disbursed them.

A subsequent investigation, according to court papers, revealed that the individuals who signed the five contribution forms that were belatedly sent to the SEEC didn't personally contribute any money to the campaign.

As a result, Newton was charged with violating a state statute that provides that a person is guilty of an illegal campaign practice if the person “directly or indirectly, individually or through another person, makes a payment or promise of a payment to a treasurer in a name other than the person's own.”

Newton was convicted but in an appeal claimed the trial court failed to instruct the jury that in order to return a guilty verdict it had to find he knowingly and willfully violated campaign finance laws.