Cases

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AMUL R. THAPAR, District Judge. Relators Jennifer Griffith and Sarah Carver filed a qui tarn complaint under the False Claims Act against defendants Eric C. Conn and others, alleging that the defendants colluded to rig. social security cases in favor of Conn and his clients. No matter how serious the allegations, the relators’ complaint still must meet minimal pleading re

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: *24Connecticut Fine Wine and Spirits, d/b/a Total Wine & More ("Total Wine") appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet C. Hall, District Judge) dismissing its complaint against the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection ("DCP") and the Directo

ELGO, J. The respondent mother (mother) and the respondent father (father) 1 appeal from the judgments of the trial court terminating their parental rights with respect to their minor children, Anaishaly C. and Khrianalis C., 2 a

**************************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of this opinion is the date the opinion was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. This opinion is subject to revisions and editorial changes, not of a substantive nature, and corrections of a tech

NORCOTT, J. The respondent father appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights with respect to his minor child, Athena C. The respondent claims that the trial court improperly (1) determined that the termination of his parental rights was in the child's best interest; and (2) denied his motion to transfer guardianship of the child to the child's matern

1 A.3d 217 (2010) 123 Conn.App. 31 DAVID M. SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. v. Ruth A. KENDALL. Ruth A. Kendall v. David M. Somers. No. 30530. Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued April 15, 2010. Decided August 3, 2010. *218 William F. Gallagher, New Haven, for the appellants (pl

*457 Opinion FLYNN, J. Section 1-4 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides that where evidence is admissible “for one purpose but not for another” that “[t]he court may, and upon request shall, restrict the evidence to its proper scope.” The defendant, Thomas C., appeals from the judgment of conviction of risk of injury to a child

Debra Ann Livingston, Circuit Judge: Defendants-Appellants-the Connecticut State Board of Education, and Commissioner of the Connecticut State Department of Education Gerald Tirozzi-appeal several orders of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Chatigny, J ., Martinez, M.J. ) awarding Plaintiffs-Appellees and Interveno

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

927 A.2d 832 (2007) 283 Conn. 396 DAVID M. SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. v. Lori C. BUSCH. No. 17839. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued April 16, 2007. Decided August 7, 2007. *835 Gary J. Greene, Avon, for the appellant (plaintiff). Paul A. Keily, West Hartford, for the appellee (

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 120 Conn. App. 26 (AC 29920), is denied.

Opinion issued February 7, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-11-00794-CV ——————————— NANCY GOLDSTEIN, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF BP P.L.C., Appellant V. BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA INC.; BP PRODUCT

Opinion LAVERY, J. The respondent mother 1 appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights as to her minor children, K and Z. The respondent claims: (1) due process required that the trial court grant her a continuance and an opportunity to regain her compet

990 A.2d 1252 (2010) 120 Conn.App. 26 STATE of Connecticut v. SCOTT C.[1] No. 29920. Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued November 12, 2009. Decided March 23, 2010. *1254 David T. Grudberg, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant). Lisa A. Riggione, senior assistant sta

STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Citrus-grove owner Richard Hermanns attempts to squeeze $2.965 million from Travelers Indemnity Company based on Hermanns's consent judgment against Richard McKenzie, the former manager of Hermanns's grove and a former insured under a Travelers Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy with a "farm care-taker liability" endorsement. The consent judgment results from an episode in whic

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

The petition by the respondent mother for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 117 Conn. App. 590 (AC 30020), is denied.

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr