after hearing in Connecticut

2026January 6, 2026 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 8 353 Conn. 845 JANUARY, 2026 7 Orlando v. Liburd and the lack of any detriment to the plaintiff.’’ After hearing argument on that motion, the trial court, sua sponte, ordered the parties to file briefs addressing whether the unjust enrichment count against Nation- wide was ripe given the plaintiff’s allegation that Nation- wide’s liability is contingent on Liburd being found liable for the plaintiff’s claimed damages.

2002Utilizing the standard of burden of proof set forth in State v. Metz , 230 Conn. 400 (1994), the court finds after hearing and review of all exhibits that the State has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the acquittee is mentally ill to the extent that his discharge at this time would constitute a danger to himself or others and that his continued commitment is in the best protection of society.

1998The court, Sferrazza, J., on February 9, 1998, heard the defendant's motion to modify child support and under the guidelines set forth in Lucy v. Lucy , 183 Conn. 230 and Paddock v. Paddock , 19 Conn. App. 91 (1989), the court denied the defendant's motion.

1998The court, Sferrazza, J., on February 9, 1998, heard the defendant's motion to modify child support and under the guidelines set forth in Lucy v. Lucy , 183 Conn. 230 and Paddock v. Paddock , 19 Conn. App. 91 (1989), the court denied the defendant's motion.

1984II On May 15, 1980, the defendant moved for a hearing to reconsider the sentence which the court denied after a hearing on May 28, 1980. 6 There is strong authority that the trial court had residual power to alter the indefinite sentence imposed upon the defendant. “[A] sentence in'a criminal case may be modified at any time during the term of court at which it was imposed, if no act has been done in exe *733 cution of it.” State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 109, 123 , 445 A.2d 304 (1982); State v. Pallotti, 119 Conn. 70, 74 , 174 A. 74 (1934).

1984II On May 15, 1980, the defendant moved for a hearing to reconsider the sentence which the court denied after a hearing on May 28, 1980. 6 There is strong authority that the trial court had residual power to alter the indefinite sentence imposed upon the defendant. “[A] sentence in'a criminal case may be modified at any time during the term of court at which it was imposed, if no act has been done in exe *733 cution of it.” State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 109, 123 , 445 A.2d 304 (1982); State v. Pallotti, 119 Conn. 70, 74 , 174 A. 74 (1934).

1984II On May 15, 1980, the defendant moved for a hearing to reconsider the sentence which the court denied after a hearing on May 28, 1980. 6 There is strong authority that the trial court had residual power to alter the indefinite sentence imposed upon the defendant. “[A] sentence in'a criminal case may be modified at any time during the term of court at which it was imposed, if no act has been done in exe *733 cution of it.” State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 109, 123 , 445 A.2d 304 (1982); State v. Pallotti, 119 Conn. 70, 74 , 174 A. 74 (1934).

1984II On May 15, 1980, the defendant moved for a hearing to reconsider the sentence which the court denied after a hearing on May 28, 1980. 6 There is strong authority that the trial court had residual power to alter the indefinite sentence imposed upon the defendant. “[A] sentence in'a criminal case may be modified at any time during the term of court at which it was imposed, if no act has been done in exe *733 cution of it.” State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 109, 123 , 445 A.2d 304 (1982); State v. Pallotti, 119 Conn. 70, 74 , 174 A. 74 (1934).

1980Co., 81 Mich. App. 489, 498 , 265 N.W.2d 385 , the court ruled that although a cause of action was stated because the defendant’s actions clearly violated the law of the state, the trial court’s granting of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was not error .because the plaintiff failed to submit any admissible evidence at trial to contradict the sworn statements made by the defendants’ agents.

1980Co., 81 Mich. App. 489, 498 , 265 N.W.2d 385 , the court ruled that although a cause of action was stated because the defendant’s actions clearly violated the law of the state, the trial court’s granting of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was not error .because the plaintiff failed to submit any admissible evidence at trial to contradict the sworn statements made by the defendants’ agents.

1950The duty of the trial court is thus described in Kliarsky v. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., 116 Conn. 649, 651 , 166 A. 65 : “Where, as is the usual practice, exhibits attached to the petition set forth the evidence taken upon the trial and that newly-discovered, and the accuracy of both is admitted by demurrer, the court to which the petition is addressed compares the old testimony with the new and decides, in the exercise of a sound discretion, whether injustice has probably been done, and whether the newly-discovered evidence is likely to change the result.” The rule on appeal is stated in

1950The duty of the trial court is thus described in Kliarsky v. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., 116 Conn. 649, 651 , 166 A. 65 : “Where, as is the usual practice, exhibits attached to the petition set forth the evidence taken upon the trial and that newly-discovered, and the accuracy of both is admitted by demurrer, the court to which the petition is addressed compares the old testimony with the new and decides, in the exercise of a sound discretion, whether injustice has probably been done, and whether the newly-discovered evidence is likely to change the result.” The rule on appeal is stated in

1950The duty of the trial court is thus described in Kliarsky v. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., 116 Conn. 649, 651 , 166 A. 65 : “Where, as is the usual practice, exhibits attached to the petition set forth the evidence taken upon the trial and that newly-discovered, and the accuracy of both is admitted by demurrer, the court to which the petition is addressed compares the old testimony with the new and decides, in the exercise of a sound discretion, whether injustice has probably been done, and whether the newly-discovered evidence is likely to change the result.” The rule on appeal is stated in

1950The duty of the trial court is thus described in Kliarsky v. Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., 116 Conn. 649, 651 , 166 A. 65 : “Where, as is the usual practice, exhibits attached to the petition set forth the evidence taken upon the trial and that newly-discovered, and the accuracy of both is admitted by demurrer, the court to which the petition is addressed compares the old testimony with the new and decides, in the exercise of a sound discretion, whether injustice has probably been done, and whether the newly-discovered evidence is likely to change the result.” The rule on appeal is stated in

1933In either case, whether upon the testimony old and new—as found by the court after hearing witnesses—or upon such testimony as set forth in the application and admitted, the court decides in the exercise of a sound discretion whether a new trial should be granted or denied.” The practice requires that the petition set forth “a literal transcript of the testimony of each witness or the substance of the testimony of each witness, in exhibits attached to the petition or otherwise.” Piasecki v. Nowinski, 103 Conn. 671, 673 , 131 Atl. 500 ; Perry v. Puklin Co., 100 Conn. 104, 113 , 123 Atl. 28 .

1933In either case, whether upon the testimony old and new—as found by the court after hearing witnesses—or upon such testimony as set forth in the application and admitted, the court decides in the exercise of a sound discretion whether a new trial should be granted or denied.” The practice requires that the petition set forth “a literal transcript of the testimony of each witness or the substance of the testimony of each witness, in exhibits attached to the petition or otherwise.” Piasecki v. Nowinski, 103 Conn. 671, 673 , 131 Atl. 500 ; Perry v. Puklin Co., 100 Conn. 104, 113 , 123 Atl. 28 .

1933In either case, whether upon the testimony old and new—as found by the court after hearing witnesses—or upon such testimony as set forth in the application and admitted, the court decides in the exercise of a sound discretion whether a new trial should be granted or denied.” The practice requires that the petition set forth “a literal transcript of the testimony of each witness or the substance of the testimony of each witness, in exhibits attached to the petition or otherwise.” Piasecki v. Nowinski, 103 Conn. 671, 673 , 131 Atl. 500 ; Perry v. Puklin Co., 100 Conn. 104, 113 , 123 Atl. 28 .

1933In either case, whether upon the testimony old and new—as found by the court after hearing witnesses—or upon such testimony as set forth in the application and admitted, the court decides in the exercise of a sound discretion whether a new trial should be granted or denied.” The practice requires that the petition set forth “a literal transcript of the testimony of each witness or the substance of the testimony of each witness, in exhibits attached to the petition or otherwise.” Piasecki v. Nowinski, 103 Conn. 671, 673 , 131 Atl. 500 ; Perry v. Puklin Co., 100 Conn. 104, 113 , 123 Atl. 28 .

1903Parsons v. Platt, 37 Conn. 563, 567 .