Page 25 - CLT090720

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS SEPTEMBER 7, 2020 ¦ 25

available in a strict foreclosure, and overturned were struck by another vehicle and plaintiff was
the trial and appellate courts with respect to injured. Plaintiff received workers’ compensa-
property taxes and insurance, finding they must tion to cover medical costs and lost wages, and
be pursued via deficiency judgments. subsequently filed the present action alleging the
coworker’s negligence caused the accident and
injuries. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack
ELECTION AND POLITICAL LAW • of subject matter jurisdiction based on sover-
CIVIL PROCEDURE eign immunity, arguing that because plaintiff

Court Finds Absentee Ballot received workers’ compensation the waiver of
sovereign immunity did not apply. The trial court
Restrictions Only Applicable for granted the motion to dismiss, and plaintiff ap-
Elections, not Primaries pealed. The state argued that § 52-556 does not
waive sovereign immunity with respect to actions
brought by employees who have received workers’
CASE: Fay v. Merrill compensation, however the court found the trial
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
DOC. NO.: SC 20477 court erred in ruling it did not have jurisdiction.
COURT OPINION BY: Robinson The court found that a court still has jurisdiction
DATE: August 03, 2020 • PAGES: 14 over a claim brought by a state employee against
Defendant, acting under the executive orders is- the state, even though they have received work-
sued by Governor Ned Lamont, and in her ca- ers’ compensation benefits, however such receipt
pacity as Commissioner of Elections, added a may be used as an affirmative alternate grounds
new category to the application for absentee bal- for judgment. The plaintiff argued the waiver of
lot voting for “COVID-19,” listing the ongoing sovereign immunity also prohibits the state from
public health pandemic as a reason for voting ab- asserting any defense, but the court disagreed,
sentee prior to the August primaries. Plaintiffs, finding that under §31-284 the claim was preclud-
who are candidates for state congressional offices ed. The court found the dismissal to be improper,
in the Republican primaries, brought this peti- and reversed with direction to render judgment in
tion and complaint for injunctive relief claiming favor of the state.
defendant’s issuance of the absentee ballot ap-
plication violated the Connecticut constitution
because defendant is not authorized to expand LAND USE AND PLANNING

absentee balloting, absentee voting is strictly lim- Court Affirms in Part and Reverses
ited by the constitution and can only be expand- in Part Trial Court’s Interpretation of
ed by the electorate, and the application expands
the reasons beyond those enumerated in the con-
stitution. The court granted defendant’s motion Zoning Amendments

to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant CASE: Lime Rock Park, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Comm’n of
argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the the Town of Salisbury
terms of absentee ballot restrictions apply only COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
to elections and not to primaries, and the court DOC. NO.: SC 20237
agreed. The court granted the motion to dismiss. COURT OPINION BY: Vertefeuille
DATE: May 22, 2020 • PAGES: 40
The plaintiff owned subject property that, since
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION 1957, had been used for automobile races and

Court Finds Waiver of Sovereign auto shows. Even though there was no zoning
code, the owners were enjoined from racing ac-
Immunity Does Not Preclude State tivities on Sundays. In 1960, the town adopted
Defense in Negligence Claim the zoning regulations, establishing the property
as laying within the “Rural Enterprise” district,
with several variants and judgments since for muf-
CASE: Feliciano v. State of Connecticut flered/unmufflered and motorcycle races. In 2015
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court the town adopted amendments to the zoning reg-
DOC. NO.: SC 20373 ulations; the commission stated the amendments
COURT OPINION BY: Mullins
DATE: August 24, 2020 • PAGES: 12 codified existing restrictions already part of the
Plaintiff, a state employee, was a passenger in a town’s zoning scheme at the property and incor-
motor vehicle operated by a coworker when they porated the terms from a stipulated judgment.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune