Contact FreedomWorks

111 K Street NE
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20002

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870

Judicial Reform States Connecticut

Connecticut Supreme Court

Leans Pro Freedom
Total Judgeships: 

7 (0 vacancies)

Political Makeup: 

Non- Partisan



Recent Cases

  • Upcoming
  • Heard
  • Decided

Take Action

WATCH NOWBiden's Broken Promises, McDonald's Broken Ice Cream Machines, & DeSantis Breaks The Fake News MediaWatch Here

Are You a Supervisor for Hired Help?

Tue, 07/01/2014

Janine Cannizzaro v. Stephan Marinyak et al.: Diane Mayo employed Marinyak for home restoration work. One day, Marinyak left Mayo’s home intoxicated and got into a car crash with Cannizzaro. Cannizzaro filed suit against Mayo on the basis that she was a negligent supervisor who owed Mayo a duty of care. The Trial Court granted summary judgment in favor of Mayo.


The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the ruling of the lower court. The Court determined that based on the facts that Mayo did not offer Marinyak alcohol and that she expressly stated that she did not want him drinking on her property, Mayo did not owe Cannizzaro a greater duty of care.

Read the full decision here

Host of Underage Drinker Ruled Innocent in Negligence Case

Tue, 06/17/2014

Joel Stafford v. Albert Roadway et al.: Stafford is under the legal age for drinking and, while visiting Roadway’s home, became extremely intoxicated and fell into a bonfire, resulting in multiple severe burns. Stafford filed suit against Roadway on grounds that Roadway owed him a duty of care and was negligent in allowing the underage plaintiff to drink and be near a bonfire. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Roadway.


The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Trial Court. The Court determined that the Trial Court properly informed the jury of the definition of contributory negligence resulting in their decision in favor of Roadway.

Read the full decision here

Right to Expert Advice?

Tue, 06/17/2014

State of Connecticut v. Lishan Wang: Upon being charged with murder, Wang waived his legal right to counsel and decided to represent himself. However, he requested funds from court in order to hire experts and an investigator to assist him in forming his defense. The question of the validity of this request was placed on appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court.


The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that an individual who wishes to represent himself is constitutionally entitled to an expert and an investigator at the public’s expense as long as the individual can prove the necessity of these appointments. In addition the Court ruled that the state trial court does not have the power to establish the funding necessary for these appointments, granting that power, instead, to the State’s Office of the Chief Public Defender.

Read the full decision here