A Connecticut Law Blog

by Ryan McKeen

This post was originally published on May 2, 2008. The rolling hills and roads of Litchfield inspired me to write it. I hope you enjoy:

Yesterday, I thought to myself: “What is a scenic road?”

I ask and the Connecticut General Statutes answer:

A ”scenic road” means any state highway or portion thereof that (1) passes through agricultural land or abuts land on which is located an historic building or structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the state register of historic places, compiled pursuant to section 10-409, or (2) affords vistas of marshes, shoreline, forests with mature trees or notable geologic or other natural features. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 13b-31b

Before you apply to law school, take a minute and reflect on this post. One minute you’re driving down a nice road and the next minute you’re thinking about zoning implications for abutters of scenic roads.

March 10th, 2010 | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog, Random CT Laws | Leave a comment

by Ryan McKeen

I saw this sign as I was walking to my car yesterday…

…and I thought “a blog post” and “possibly multiple blog posts!”

The sign lets a person know that if he parks in that spot without a permit he will be fined at least $116.

Here’s why the sign says that:

Such spaces shall be designated by above grade signs with white lettering against a blue background and shall bear the words “handicapped parking permit required” and “violators will be fined”. Such sign shall also bear the international symbol of access. When such a sign is replaced, repaired or erected it shall indicate the minimum fine for a violation of subsection (f) of this section. Such indicator may be in the form of a notice affixed to such a sign. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 14-253a(h).

Nice to know that my gym complies with Connecticut’s handicapped parking sign statute.

March 8th, 2010 | Tags: ct disability law, handicapped parking | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog, Random CT Laws | Comments (2)

by Ryan McKeen

Hearing that the issue of standing will be raised in Bysiewicz v. DiNardo.  I expect someone to raise the argument early in the proceedings that Susan Bysiewicz does not have the ability to bring this action.

Courts cannot hear a case unless a party has standing to bring it.  An opponent or opponents will likely argue that Bysiewicz has to be the nominee before she can bring the action.

March 7th, 2010 | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog | Leave a comment

by Ryan McKeen

If you’re interested in blogging about Connecticut law on this site, please send me an email at rmckeen at lttnlaw.com. Whether you’re a law student,  lawyer, legal professional or an interested citizen, I’d love to hear from you. No technical experience required. You can email me what you want to post and I’ll take care of getting it online.

Things are in the process of changing a bit around here. I’m bringing a veteran editor on board to tighten up some of the posts. I’d also like to establish a regular posting schedule and debut new posts every morning. What I’m looking to do is take this site to the next level. This site has been pretty much a one-man show. Frankly, it’s hard to keep up with a busy practice.

Before you email me, please be advised that everyone at A Connecticut Law Blog — from me to my dog Brady who frequently contributes her likeness to the site — gets paid the same amount: nothing.

There are no ads on this site. It does not generate revenue. What I’m willing to offer you is a link below your post to your firm’s site.  What you’ll get is some exposure. This site generates a decent amount of traffic for what it is. Google will pick up your posts. Posts that amount to ads for you will not be posted. I exercise full editorial control over what gets posted.

If you’re a law student this could be a way to gain some exposure, show your chops, and add a line to your resume.

Anyhow, it’s an exciting time around here.  Please drop me a line if you’re interested. I look forward to working with you whether it’s for one post or having you aboard as a regular contributor.

March 7th, 2010 | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog | Leave a comment

by Ryan McKeen

Here’s my attempt at a Sunday morning NFL pre-game show. Below are just my opinions.  Here is what I am watching for:

1. Can the Republicans intervene? There’s no way lawyers for Bysiewicz want this to happen. I expect her lawyers to fight this issue tooth and nail.  If the Republicans are able to intervene, at the very least they will likely be able to cause a delay in the proceedings. Bysiewicz wants this resolved prior to the state convention in May.  On the legal clock, that’s a nanosecond.

2. Does someone challenge Bysiewicz’s standing to bring the action? I’m on record in this blog as saying that she does presently have standing to bring this action, but my blog is not law.  Some one may argue that in order to bring the action she must actually be the nominee. I don’t see it that way, but standing is a threshold issue. If a court rules she doesn’t have it, then her action would be dismissed — a fatal blow to her campaign. On the one hand, I think she has standing to bring it. But on the other, I think an opponent may want to raise the issue.

3. Bysiewicz’s clearly wants a court to rule that she’s qualified and to do so quickly. At the end of the day, the best possible outcome is if the court rules the statute is constitutional and that she’s qualified. This is a legal as well as a political issue for her. Having the statute declared unconstitutional may be a legal victory, but also a political setback for her.

4. In my opinion the Republican strategy likely involves a bunch of Ds. The first D is that they want her Disqualified from running.  Why bother intervening if this wasn’t their ultimate end?

The second D is to Delay the proceedings.  I’m not for one second suggesting that the Republicans want to intervene solely to delay the proceedings because I think want to defeat her in court. But, we live in a land where it often takes a year to decide a small claims case.  Our courts are set up to handle cases like this, but they are extraordinary. Litigation takes time.

If this matter persists into November, it will significantly impact Bysiewicz’s chances of become Attorney General.  Even delaying proceedings until either May, when the convention takes place,  or August, when a primary would be held, might render the case moot.

The third D is that they want Discovery. The discovery process could be cumbersome in this case because it may open an inquiry into Bysiewicz’s daily activities.

5. I don’t anticipate the trial court finding the statute unconstitutional, though it’s possible.  No matter how the trial court rules on this issue, this matter will be resolved by the Connecticut Supreme Court.

At the end of the day, I have to think that the most important thing to watch for is whether or not the Republicans are able to intervene in the action.  I have no predictions as to how any of this turns out. There is no outcome would surprise me.

The statute could be constitutional or it may not be.  Bysiewicz’s activities as Secretary of State may or may not be deemed the “active practice of law”. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

March 5th, 2010 | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog | Leave a comment

by Ryan McKeen

A hearing is scheduled for 2:00 on Friday, March 5th in Bysiewicz v. DiNardo.

The judicial branch does not show appearances for either Nancy DiNardo or the Connecticut Democrats. Both parties have until Friday to file an appearance or risk being defaulted. Defendants commonly wait until the last minute to file appearances in a case, so I wouldn’t read anything into the fact that either DiNardo or the Dems have not yet filed an appearance.

The Attorney General’s office has filed an appearance on behalf of the Connecticut Secretary of the State.

It’s unclear from the judicial branch website what issues will be addressed at the hearing. Sometimes, in cases of public interest such as this one, updates and information are posted under latest news and updates.

March 3rd, 2010 | Tags: attorney general, dinardo, susan bysiewicz | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog | Leave a comment

by Ryan McKeen

After watching the great game between the U.S. and Canada last night, I decided to write a post on Connecticut hockey law.

I looked at cases involving the Hartford Whalers, various cases about people hitting each other with hockey sticks, and Jaworski v. Kiernan. Unfortunately Jawaorkski isn’t a case about hockey, it’s a case about soccer.

While reading the case, I came across this gem:

In Walsh, both the plaintiffs and the defendant’s golf balls were roughly one hundred feet from the green. “Standing by the defendant’s ball, the plaintiff and [the] 412defendant discussed the club the defendant should use and the defendant selected his mashie niblick. The plaintiff, seeing the defendant about to prepare to take his shot, said, `Now put it on the green,’ and walked away at almost right angles to the direct and intended line of flight from the ball to the green. Without calling `Fore,’ the defendant swung at his ball, shanked it so that it was deflected at almost a 90 degree angle to the right and hit the plaintiff in the eye as he turned to look back over his left shoulder just as he had reached his ball, causing him serious injury.”

A mashie niblick?!?!? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Then again, I don’t golf. Fortunately for me, Justice Callahan saw fit to define “mashie niblick” for readers in a footnote:

Mashie niblick: “[A]n iron golf club with a loft between those of a mashie and a niblick—called also number six iron.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.

It would be great if we decided to reintroduce the term “mashie niblick” into our lexicon. You’d hear things like “Wow, that’s a nice mashie niblick” or “sale on mashie niblicks” or “I just got a new mashie niblick.”

Did the plaintiff in Walsh go home that night and tell his wife that he was injured by a “mashie niblick?”

One can never FOREsee what you’re going to read on this site.

March 1st, 2010 | Tags: mashie niblick | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog, Personal Injury, Random CT Laws | Leave a comment

One of the best things about having this site is that I’m constantly learning things. All sorts of things. Below is an email sent to me by a lawyer who wishes to remain anonymous. I’ve slightly edited his email and with his permission, turned it into a post.  Enjoy:

“I enjoy your Connecticut law blog very much. One thing, though, bothers me as a lawyer: Your use of the word ‘presently,’ as in this sentence:

This comes at a time when foreclosures and seriously delinquent home loans in Connecticut jumped more than a full percentage point in the last quarter of 2009. Connecticut’s foreclosure problems are presently getting worse.

When I was trained as a  lawyer in the 1970s, a senior partner told me if I ever used ‘presently’ in a contract to convey the concept of ‘currently,’ ‘at present’ or ‘now,’ he would beat me with a stick. This is because ‘presently’ inherently is ambiguous.

Its historical meaning is ‘in the near future’ as in ‘I will attend to your needs presently, Watson.’ In modern American usage, a different meaning has been creeping in, as your blog entry shows.

You are not alone in using ‘presently’ as a synonym for ‘currently;’ indeed, you are quite modern. But you may be creating ambiguity out there and, certainly, you are adding a discordant note in an otherwise flawless score, at least to this blog reader.

P.S. I saw with amusement in one of your earlier postings that at least one Connecticut court also misused ‘presently.’”

See here:

What are the requirements for a valid marriage ceremony in Connecticut?

1. The physical presence of the parties before an official licensed to perform a marriage ceremony in Connecticut; and  2. A third party official must witness or officiate at a ceremony herein the parties each presently consent to marriage. Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588 (1972).

So, the ambiguity I reference above might have interesting — and absurd — consequences in the context of Connecticut marriage.

February 26th, 2010 | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog | Comments (7)

by Ryan McKeen

Earlier this week,  I read George Gombossy’s article “How The Courant Makes Millions in Mandatory Foreclosure Advertising.” Check it out if you haven’t. Anyhow, his article  got me thinking.

Two years ago, I had to publish orders of notice in various newspapers across the country. The purpose of doing so was to put heirs and creditors on notice of a legal action.

Below were my costs to publish the same notice in various newspapers:

San Francisco Chronicle: $355.00

Los Angeles Times: $403.20

The Press Enterprise: $244.40

Escalon Times: $328.20

The Hartford Courant: $919.00

Sheridan County News: $96.00

These were not mandatory foreclosure ads. The only thing published was text. You’d expect to see a range of prices given the size of the publication and the region in which the paper is published. It’s logical that it would cost more to publish notice in the San Francisco Chronicle than the Sheridan County News, a small weekly newspaper in Montana. I get that.

I also understand the Courant needs to turn a profit on advertising. I don’t begrudge them that at all. They’re a business and in order to survive, they need to make money.

However, the  Courant was over 125% more expensive than the next most expensive newspaper,  the Los Angeles Times.  I can’t think of a good reason as to why that is.

My client was left with no choice but to publish the notice in the Courant because there is no other game in town.

February 25th, 2010 | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog | Comments (1)