Defendant and his wife appeal the trial court's judgment in a breach of contract and lien foreclosure action arising out of a dispute concerning the construction of a single-family home in the town of Greenwich. Defendants challenged all aspects of the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff except the portion of the judgment awarding plaintiff loss profit. Plaintiff challenged in his cross-appeal that the trial court improperly accepted the attorney trial referee's determination that the mechanic's lien was invalid and therefore improperly awarded defendants damages under General Statutes 49-8(c). The court held that because plaintiff and third party defendant offered no legal support for the attorney trial referee's finding that the wife was liable for breaching the contract between defendant and plaintiff, the portion of the trial court's judgment that was rendered against her could not stand. The court also held that the judgment of foreclosure must be reversed where there was no evidence that plaintiff furnished any materials or provided any services in connection with the contract balance and that the portion of the judgment awarding plaintiff attorney's fees pursuant to General Statutes 52-249 must also be reversed where such an award was authorized only when a valid judgment of foreclosure had been obtained. The court further held that the parties did not intend to impose liability for delays in the permitting and wetlands approval process and that the attorney trial referee improperly found that plaintiff was entitled to damages for the delays attributable to the change orders. The court also held that because plaintiff was not entitled to recover delay damages, it necessarily followed that any mechanic's lien securing those damages was invalid. The court finally held that the case must be remanded to the trial court for a determination of reasonable attorney's fees in accordance with section 49-8(c).

Plaintiffs-Appellants David and Shirley Fuller appealed a grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Respondents David Callister, Confluence Management (CM), LLC and Liberty Partners, Inc. (LP). CM wanted to buy over twelve acres of land from the Fullers. At the same time, the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) attempted to acquire part of that property for a right-of-way in order to expand a portion of a road. After executing its contract with the Fullers, CM executed an addendum to the contract where it agreed to deed over a portion of the property to ACHD, and to transfer the proceeds of that conveyance to the Fullers. CM assigned the contract to LP with the consent of the Fullers. The Fullers executed a warranty deed conveying the property to LP which made no mention of the addendum to ACHD. ACHD paid LP for the property, and the Fullers requested LP turn that money over to them in accordance with the addendum. When LP refused, the Fullers sued. Ultimately CM and LP won at the district court. The court held that the addendum merged with the warranty deed, and therefore gave the Fullers no right to collect the proceeds from the sale of land to ACHD. CM was dismissed from the suit having executed a novation to LP. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in its decisions in favor of CM and LP. The Court found that the addendum did not merge. Furthermore, the Court found the CM/LP novation was invalid, and that the Fullers could maintain their suit against CM. The Court vacated the district courtâs judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court reviewed the appellate courtâs decision against Plaintiffs Jack and Danette Steele. In their claim, Plaintiffs alleged that attorney Katherine Allen gave them incorrect information about a statute of limitations, which led to missing a filing deadline in a negligence suit. The trial court dismissed both their claims of negligent misrepresentation and professional negligence. Plaintiffs only appealed the dismissal of their negligent misrepresentation claim. The appellate court held that Plaintiffs had a claim against the attorney. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that Plaintiffsâ evidence was not sufficient to support their claim. The Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 2001, a company calling itself âComputer Geeks, a California corporation,â sued Plaintiff Jason Wright in Utah state court for failing to assign a domain name. Mr. Wright did not respond to the companyâs motion for summary judgment, and in 2006, the state court granted the motion and entered judgment against him. Mr. Wright hired Appellant-Attorney Russell Cline to have the judgment set aside or modified. In 2008, Appellant filed a motion to set the judgment aside. As it turns out, âComputer Geeks, a California corporationâ is not related to the company that held the Utah state judgment. Appellant was made aware of the mistaken identity soon after Appellant served âComputer Geeks, a California corporation.â Appellant represented to the clerk of the district court that he had properly served âComputer Geeks, a California corporation.â The clerk entered a default, and Appellant moved for a default judgment. Within a few weeks, Defendant CompGeeks.com moved to vacate the default judgment. At the hearing, Appellant acknowledged he knew the difference between the two companies, but that he served the correct holder of the Utah judgment. The district court found that Appellant had filed a frivolous action in violation of state law, and dismissed the case. The court referred Appellant to the state attorney disciplinary committee, and awarded attorneyâs fees to CompGeeks.com, making Mr. Wright and Appellant jointly and severally liable for the award. Appellant moved to vacate the award of attorneyâs fees, alleging the district court abused its discretion in its decision. On review, the Tenth Circuit âsympathize[d] with the district courtâs frustration with [Appellantâs] conduct,â but held that â Rule 11 does not allow a sua sponte award of attorney fees.â Accordingly the monetary sanctions order was vacated, and the Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Appellant Mildred Powell filed an insurance claim with respondent Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company to cover damage to her house. Liberty Mutual denied the claim, stating that the damage was excluded under the âearth movement exclusionâ in Appellantâs insurance policy. Appellant took Liberty Mutual to the district court. The court eventually granted Liberty Mutualâs motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the âearth movement exclusionâ of the policy excluded coverage of the damage. Appellant challenged the district courtâs review of the policy, arguing that it was contrary to state law on a similar âearth movement exclusion.â The Supreme Court concluded that Liberty Mutualâs policy was ambiguous held in light of the applicable state law. The Court held that the district court erred in granting the company summary judgment, and reversed its holding. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 2006, Respondent Cordillera Fund, LP, purchased shares in Appellant American Ethanol for $3 per share. In 2007, shareholders of American Ethanol sought to merge with AE Biofuels, and notified their shareholders of its intent. Respondent notified American Ethanol of its intent to dissent, and demanded payment for its shares. The merger was approved by the shareholders. When the merged company refused to pay, Respondent filed suit at the district court. Ultimately the issue for the district court to resolve involved the fair value of Respondentâs shares at the time of the merger. Appellants offered respondent $0.15 per share; Respondent maintained the fair value was $3 per share. The parties went to court because neither could agree on the value. The court entered a judgment in favor of Respondent, determining that $3 per share was the fair value. On appeal, Appellants contended that the district court abused its discretion in determining the fair value of the shares. The Supreme Court concluded that appellants did not demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion, and affirmed the courtâs ruling in favor of Respondent.

This case returns from the Fifth Circuit to answer one of three certified questions. Appellee Barnes sought to enforce a Working Interest Unit Agreement (WIUA) and Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) for unpaid royalties as a third-party beneficiary or through privity of estate. Doris Barnes sued individually and as the executrix of the estate of her husband, who was an original signatory to a lease that was later assigned to an oil exploration company. The company created a joint venture to begin drilling on lands covered by Barnesâ lease; partner to this joint venture included Appellant Tawes. When the joint venture went bankrupt, Barnes settled her unpaid royalties with the venture. Tawes did not join in the settlement, which gives rise to Barnesâ current claim for the balance of the unpaid royalties. Arguing that because the Bankruptcy Court and Federal District Court concluded that Barnes was a third-party beneficiary to the JOAâs Royalty Provision, Barnes brought suit to enforce, and Tawes appealed. On certification from the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court concluded that Barnes had no right to enforce agreements that gave rise to this suit, finding that the original lease assignment to the exploration company did not extend to Tawes. Finding no theory of recovery, the Court did not address the remaining certified questions.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment dismissing a three-count complaint arising from the renegotiation of certain investment-advisory agreements. The court certified a question to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts as to the circumstances under which that state's business judgment rule could be asserted in response to a shareholder derivative suit under the Massachusetts Business Corporations Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156D, 5.44. Upon the receipt of the answer, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of two of plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to various provisions of the Investment Company Act, 15, U.S.C. 80a-15(a), and Massachusetts state law. Regarding the third claim, a derivative state law claim for breach of fiduciary duty to which the certified question related and as to which the district court granted a motion to dismiss, the court vacated the judgement and remanded with instructions to convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, and to rule on that motion, after further discovery if further discovery was warranted.

Plaintiffs sued defendants alleging copyright infringement, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, and several other causes of actions where defendants produced a television series on the Sci-Fi Channel based on plaintiffs' materials. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's contractual claims on the basis that the claims were preempted by copyright law. The court reversed and held that copyright law did not preempt a breach of implied contract claim where plaintiffs alleged a bilateral expectation that they would be compensated for use of the idea, the essential element of a Desny v. Wilder claim that separated it from preempted claims for the use of copyrighted material. The court also held that the breach of confidence claim was not preempted by copyright law where the claim protected the duty of trust or confidential relationship between the parties, an extra element that made it qualitatively different from a copyright claim. The court also held that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to make out a claim for breach of implied contract and breach of confidence.

The Missoula City Counsel, the City of Missoula, and the Mayor, (collectively "City") and Muth-Hilberry, LLC ("developer") appealed a district court determination that found that the City was arbitrary and capricious in approving a zoning and preliminary plat for a subdivision known as Sonata Park located in Rattlesnake Valley, Montana. At issue was whether neighbors, several parties opposed to the subdivision, and the North Duncan Drive Neighborhood Association, Inc. ("Association") had standing. Also at issue was whether the district court erred in striking affidavits filed by the developer and the City in connection with their motions for summary judgment. Further at issue was whether the 1989 Sunshine Agreement between the City and the developer's predecessor in interest superseded the City's growth policy. Finally at issue was whether the City's decision in Sonata Park was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. The court held that the neighbors had standing to sue in their own right and that the Association had associational standing to proceed on behalf of its members. The court also held that any error made by the district court in granting the neighbor's motion to strike the developer's affidavit was harmless. The court further held that the Sunlight Agreement did not supersede the City's growth policy where the Sunlight Agreement could be void ab initio and did not appear to guarantee certain density. The court finally held that substantial compliance was still valid and that a government body must substantially comply with its growth policy in making zoning decisions and that the City's decision to approve Sonata Park was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.