Page 30 - CLT041221

30 ¦ APRIL 12, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT the court was whether the COVID-19 pandemic
was a “serious disaster” as required by law, and
whether that relevant statute allows the gov-
ernor to issue the challenged executive orders.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW The court held that the pandemic certainly qual-

Governor Lamont Did Not Exceed ifies as a catastrophe. Plaintiffs argued that the
statutory examples of catastrophe did not list
His Statutory Authority in Issuing “the contagion of disease.” The court denied
Executive Orders Related to the that argument, stating that the list is preceded
Pandemic by the phrase, “including but not limited to.”
The court then determined that defendant was
CASE: Casey v. Lamont statutorily authorized to issue the challenged
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court orders. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower
DOC. NO.: SC 20494 court’s decision.

COURT OPINION BY: McDonald APPELLATE COURT
DATE: March 29, 2021 • PAGES: 30
On March 10, 2020, defendant, Governor
Lamont, declared a public health emergency and
civil preparedness emergency. He then released
a series of executive orders in attempts to miti- EVIDENCE • PERSONAL INJURY

gate the spread of COVID-19. Some of these Court Held That Late Delivery
executive orders related to the sale of alcohol
and dining. In compliance with these executive of Plaintiff’s Exhibits to the Jury
orders, plaintiffs closed their business, Casey’s Deliberation Room Did Not Require a
Irish Pub, in March 2020. They sued defendant New Trial
in June 2020, requesting the court declare that
defendant acted beyond his statutory and consti-
tutional authority when he issued the executive CASE: Brown v. Cartwright
orders. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ request COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
for injunctive and declaratory relief and found DOC. NO.: AC 43415
COURT OPINION BY: Lavine
for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed and the court DATE: March 30, 2021 • PAGES: 17
affirmed. Plaintiffs did not argue that the restric- Plaintiff sued defendants for damages after he
tions imposed on their business were unreason- sustained injuries in a single car accident. The
able or not related to the public health, safety, jury returned a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff
and welfare of the state’s citizens. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial and to set aside the
claimed that defendant exceeded his statutory verdict. He claimed that after the jury had gone
authority by issuing the orders. The issue before to the deliberation room, defendants’ exhibits

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune