Connecticut Supreme Court building in Hartford. Photo: Natalia Bratslavsky/Shutterstock.com

The Connecticut Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in nine cases during its fifth session for 2019-20, which begins Jan. 13.

Here's a look at some of the more notable cases:

Feliciano v. Connecticut 

In litigation that centers around a municipality's sovereign immunity, the state Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments next month in Feliciano v. Connecticut.

Janet Feliciano was a state employees when, as a passenger in a car owned and insured by the state and driven by another state employee, she was in an accident that caused her injuries. Feliciano brought a lawsuit seeking to recover damages against the state and cited Connecticut General Statutes 52-556, which states, in part, that as an injured party in a state-owned vehicle she was entitled to damages.

But, according to the court's synopsis of the case, the state sought to dismiss the lawsuit saying it was entitled to sovereign immunity under Sullivan v. Connecticut.

In Sullivan, the plaintiff's decedent was a state employee who was killed when he was struck by a motor vehicle owned by the state and operated by another state employee. That case was dismissed and the state Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, saying that the Legislature did not intend to authorize state employees or their representatives who were eligible for workers' compensation to also sue the state for negligence. Feliciano did receive workers' compensation benefits.

The state Supreme Court, in Feliciano's case, will decide whether Sullivan is binding in this matter and whether the plaintiff's negligence claim against the state is barred under Connecticut General Statute 31-284, the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act.

State v. Mark T.

At issue in State v. Mark T. is what constitutes parental justification.

The defendant, who is referred to in court papers at Mark T., was convicted of risk of injury to a child because, according to the court synopsis of the case, he dragged his 13-year-old daughter by one leg through her school and toward the exit when she refused attempts to go to counseling. The girl was enrolled at the school in a special-education program.

The father appealed, claiming the trial court violated his constitutional rights to present, among other things, a "parental justification" defense. That defense arises from Connecticut General Statute 53a-18, which states, in part, that a parent or guardian "may use reasonable force upon such minor … when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of such minor."

The state Supreme Court will decide whether the Connecticut Appellate Court, which upheld the father's conviction, properly rejected his claim that his constitutional rights were violated and that he was entitled to a new trial.

Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Smalls Miller

The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel brought a presentment against attorney Josephine Smalls Miller on four counts that included commingling personal funds with client funds in her Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts.

Smalls Miller, who is black, alleges she was suspended based on racially discriminatory and retaliatory reasons.

After a hearing, the trial court found the disciplinary counsel had convincingly shown that Smalls Miller had engaged in misconduct and that she be suspended from practicing law for one year.

While the appeal of the suspension was pending before the Connecticut Appellate Court, Smalls Miller filed a motion for articulation of the trial court's judgment against her. That motion was denied by the Appellate Court and the state Supreme Court agreed to take the case.

The state's high court will decide whether denying the attorney's motion for articulation violated her due process rights. The court will also decide whether the trial court was correct in saying Smalls Miller engaged in misconduct and whether the one-year suspension from law was warranted.

Read more:

Connecticut Supreme Court to Hear 10 Cases in December