Connecticut Supreme court building in Hartford. Photo: Natalya Bratslavsky/Shutterstock.com

The Connecticut Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in 10 cases during its fourth session for 2019-20, which begins Dec. 12.

Here's a look at some of them:

State v. Dulos

The Connecticut Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Dec. 12 on the Jennifer Dulos murder case, which has received state and nationwide publicity ever since the 51-year-old mother of five went missing in May. Her husband, Fotis, has been a prime suspect in her disappearance. The couple was going through a divorce at the time of Jennifer Dulos' disappearance.

At issue before the state's high court is whether the trial court properly entered a gag order barring defendant Fotis Dulos, attorneys, witnesses and law enforcement from making public statements in the case, and whether those statements pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to the case.

The case has also centered on First Amendment rights, and raised questions about what constitutes protected speech in a criminal proceeding. Justices are now set to weigh whether that gag order violates Fotis Dulos' Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, and his free speech rights under federal and state constitutions.

The state filed a motion for a gag order that would apply to counsel for both sides, according to the Supreme Court's synopsis of the case. The motion followed statements by defense counsel regarding the wife's disappearance and leaks from law enforcement sources, according to court documents. The trial court granted the state's request, and then went farther by ruling the gag order would apply to witnesses and law enforcement.

The trial court acknowledged that the gag order could affect the First Amendment rights of the affected parties, according to the Supreme Court synopsis of the case. But it found those rights had to be balanced with the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, which media coverage could compromise.

Norm Pattis, the defense's lead counsel, appealed the trial court's ruling. Pattis has spoken frequently to the press about the case.

Karagozian v. USV Optical

In litigation that centers on what constitutes an intolerable work atmosphere, the Connecticut Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Ohan Karagozian, who was constructively discharged from his employment as a licensed optician manager.

Karagozian, according to the Supreme Court's synopsis of the case, alleged that from the date of his hiring to the date in which he resigned, the defendant—who operated inside a JCPenney Department store—required him to provide optometric services to the doctor in the store, in violation of state policy.

Karagozian's suit alleged he was forced to resign when he asked to stop, and that USV Optical created an intolerable work atmosphere.

The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed a lower court ruling, which determined Karagozian failed to state a claim of constructive discharge.

Now, the state's high court will determine whether an action for constructive discharge in violation of public policy requires the plaintiff to allege and prove not only that employer intended to create an intolerable work atmosphere, but also that the employer intended to force the plaintiff to resign.

Geralynn Boone, executrix of the estate of Mary Boone v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals

Plaintiff Geralynn Boone brought a products liability lawsuit against Connecticut-based Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceutical on behalf of her mother, Mary, who died of intestinal bleeding.The case hinges on whether one of the country's largest pharmaceutical companies failed to warn doctors of the risks of a prescription blood thinner.

Geralynn Boone links her mother's death to Pradaxa, and claims the company failed to warn medical personnel about the risks in prescribing the drug, according to the Connecticut Supreme Court's synopsis of the case. The lawsuit alleges her mother took Pradaxa to lower her risk of stroke from atrial fibrillation.

Boone claims, among other things, that the trial court improperly precluded the plaintiff from seeking to rebut the testimony of the company's expert witness, who had said that Boone's bleeding did not cause her death.

Read more:

19 Cases Slated for Connecticut Supreme Court Session in November