7 results for 'judge:"Alexander"'.
J. Lynch finds the trial court properly denied the state's motion to dismiss medical malpractice claims brought by the patient whose children either died or sustained permanent injuries following an artificial insemination procedure. Although a portion of the lawsuit included informed consent claims related to the cytomegalovirus-positive status of the sperm donor, these claims were linked to the medical malpractice claims and did not allow for the application of sovereign immunity. Meanwhile, the court properly calculated damages for the child with permanent injuries because they were proximately caused by the state's failure to follow an applicable standard of care and the state was in the best position to absorb the costs of providing treatment over the course of the victim's life. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: Alexander, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: SC20646, Categories: Immunity, Damages, Medical Malpractice
J. Alexander finds the lower court properly upheld the tax assessments on the company's vehicles. Although the vehicles are also taxed in Massachusetts - the state in which they are registered - the "double taxes" are the result of separate, non-discriminatory tax schemes that do not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: Alexander, Filed On: December 13, 2023, Case #: SC20748, Categories: Commerce, Tax, Vehicle
J. Alexander finds the trial court properly dismissed the attorney's petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the production of sealed documents. The documents were related to a separate case in family court and, therefore, the court could not grant any meaningful relief and lacked jurisdiction to modify the family court orders. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: Alexander, Filed On: August 7, 2023, Case #: SC20710, Categories: Civil Procedure, Family Law, Jurisdiction
J. Alexander finds the appeals court properly upheld the award of damages to the truck driver for lost wages after he was fired for expressing concerns about the safety of his employer's vehicles. The employer provided no rebuttal evidence for the driver's testimony about his pay rate, length of unemployment, or the number of miles he averaged per week while driving for the employer. Although the driver did not provide specific evidence to support his unpaid wages claim, the jury was in the best position to determine his credibility, and the lack of rebuttal evidence made the award reasonable and supported by the evidence in the record. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: Alexander, Filed On: July 28, 2023, Case #: SC20718, Categories: Jury, Damages, Employment Retaliation
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Alexander finds the trial court did not violate defendant's confrontation rights when it limited his attorney's cross-examination of the victim. The attorney was still able to question the victim about his previous criminal convictions and the terms of his probation, which allowed for a full defense and for the attorney to put forth defendant's theory of the case, which involved fabrication accusations. Additionally, there was evidence to corroborate the victim's version of events, including testimony from hospital staff that treated the victim's injuries; therefore, the limiting of the cross-examination did not prejudice defendant in any way. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: Alexander, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: SC20620, Categories: Burglary, Confrontation, Evidence
J. Alexander finds the trial court's application of Turks and Caicos Islands law in a judgment enforcement case in which the trial court found for the owner of a company did not prejudice the bank. Even if the laws of Connecticut or New York had been applied, its piercing of the corporate veil claim would have failed for its lack of evidence to indicate the owner moved assets into a trust account solely for the purpose of avoiding judgments on margin calls. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: Alexander, Filed On: May 26, 2023, Case #: SC20647, Categories: Evidence, Enforcement Of Judgments, Banking / Lending