On March 1, 2018, Sexton & Co. welcomed Danielle Edwards as an associate. Attorney Edwards joins the firm after having worked for several years as a trial and appellate litigator in Stamford. She will focus her practice on civil, criminal, and child protection appeals.
On February 27, 2018, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in In re Kyllan V., reversing the decision of the trial court.
On February 27, 2018, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in State v. Robert S., 179 Conn. App. 831, affirming the judgment of the trial court.
On February 26, 2018, Attorney Megan Wade filed a reply brief in Dupigney v. Commissioner of Correction.
On February 13, 2018, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in Omar v. Commissioner of Correction, 179 Conn. Ap. 696, affirming the judgment of the habeas court.
On February 13, 2018, Attorney Jay Sexton argued State v. Morice W., at the Appellate Court.
On February 8, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner’s petition for certification in Angel Meletrich v. Commissioner of Correction, to appeal from the Appellate Court, 178 Conn. App. 266 on the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court correctly concluded that (a) the trial counsel’s failure to call the petitioner’s aunt as an alibi witness was reasonable trial strategy and therefore not ineffective assistance of counsel, and (b) such failure did not prejudice the petitioner?”
On February 5, 2018, Attorney Jay Sexton argued State v. Stephenson, at the Appellate Court.
On January 29, 2018, Attorney Megan Wade argued State v. Rogers at the Appellate Court.
On January 24, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certification to appeal of the respondent-father in In re Jacob W. We represent the petitioners-guardians.
On January 17, 2018, after more than three years as Taylor & Sexton, the firm announced its new name, Sexton & Company. Partners Jay Sexton and Emily Graner Sexton, together with their associates, Matt Eagan and Megan Wade, and office manager, Catherine Knaus, are delighted to continue to focus their practice in the areas of appellate law and school law. The firm will remain in its current office space in the historic building at 363 Main Street in Hartford.
On January 16, 2018, the firm welcomed office manager and paralegal, Catherine Knaus. Ms. Knaus brings more than 15 years of experience managing a variety of different-sized law firms and providing quality legal and human resource talent. We are thrilled to add her tremendous skill set and expertise to our growing firm.
On January 16, 2018, Attorney Mike Taylor argued on behalf of the defendant-appellee State v. Norman P., at the Supreme Court.
On January 11, 2018, Attorney Jay Sexton argued on behalf of the petitioner-appellee In re Kyllan V., at the Appellate Court.
In December 2017, as part of the firm’s school law practice, Attorney Emily Graner Sexton represented the parents of a young child with autism and she negotiated through mediation the implementation of an Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) based program that more than doubled the student’s service hours provided by the school.
On December 19, 2017, Attorney Megan Wade successfully argued a motion for post-conviction bond in State v. Talia Colon. Attorney Wade argued that incarceration was not necessary to ensure her client’s appearance at court proceedings during the pendency of any post-conviction proceedings. Further, Attorney Wade argued that her client is not a danger to the community and would submit to any conditions of bond that the court felt necessary to impose. The trial court agreed and set bond for Attorney Wade’s client.
On December 7, 2017, Attorney Matt Eagan argued Omar v. Commissioner of Correction, at the Appellate Court.
On November 28, 2017, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in Meletrich v. Commissioner of Correction, dismissing the habeas appeal.
On November 16, 2017, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in In re Damian G., 178 Conn. App. 220, affirming the judgment of the trial court.
On November 16, 2017, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in In re Jacob W., 178 Conn. App. 195 (2017) in our client’s favor.
On November 14, 2017, Attorney Jay Sexton argued State v. Robert S., at the Appellate Court.
On November 13, 2017, Attorney Mike Taylor argued Meribear Productions Inc. v. Joan Frank at the Supreme Court.
On November 1, 2017, the Appellate Court granted our motion to file a supplemental brief in State v. Rogers, A.C. 40125, to address the issue concerning the admission of cellular data evidence based on the recent in State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97 (2017), which, for the first time, addressed the issue of whether a witness who testifies about cellular data must be qualified as an expert before he can testify. In that case, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court must conduct a hearing pursuant to State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (1997) prior to admitting testimonial or documentary evidence pertaining to historic cell site analysis.
In October 2017, Attorney Jay Sexton was appointed to the Judicial Branch’s Access to Justice Commission by Chief Justice Chase Rogers. “The mission of the Access to Justice Commission is to develop recommendations to help ensure equal access for all people, including low- and moderate-income individuals, people with different physical or developmental abilities, the elderly, limited English proficient individuals, and ethnic, cultural and racial minorities.” To this end, Attorney Sexton will focus on developing suggestions for providing low- and pro-bono appellate legal services to qualifying individuals in appellate cases.
In October 2017, Attorneys Michael Taylor, Jay Sexton, and Emily Graner Sexton were all selected as “2017 Connecticut Super Lawyers" or "2017 Connecticut Rising Stars" in the area of appellate law.
On October 4, 2017, Attorney Mike Taylor argued In re Damian G. to the Appellate Court.
On September 28, 2017, the Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral argument in Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc., et al. v. Rell. Taylor & Sexton wrote brief on behalf of amicus curiae, the Arc of the United States and the Arc of Connecticut in this case.
On September 8, 2017, Attorney Matt Eagan argued Meletrich v. Commissioner of Corrections to the Appellate Court.
On September 7, 2017, Attorney James Sexton argued In re Jacob W. to the Appellate Court.
On August 29, 2017, On July 18, 2017, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in Rockhill v. Danbury Hospital, 176 Conn. App. 39, affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of our client, Anna Rockhill.
On August 22, 2017, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in State v. Walton, 175 Conn. App. 642, affirming the judgment of the trial court.
On August 9, 2017, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in In re Elijah C., 326 Conn. 480 (2017). Although a tragic loss for our client, the decision represents a significant step forward for parents with disabilities who face child protection proceedings. Although the Supreme Court was adamant that there is no change in the law because the ADA is already subsumed within our TPR statute’s reasonable efforts requirement, it had not actually been applied in that fashion previously. In the past, when the ADA was raised, courts most commonly interpreted such claims as being either a special defense or a claim that special services were required and declined to address them as being inapplicable to child protection proceedings. The In re Elijah C. Court took the opportunity to “encourage trial courts to look to the ADA for guidance in fashioning appropriate services for parents with disabilities,” but also noted that “the department’s failure to make reasonable modifications to its services, programs or activities to accommodate a parent’s disability would likely preclude a finding under § 17a-112(j)(1) that the department’s reunification efforts were reasonable under the circumstances.” 326 Conn at. 509. Practically speaking, this means parents with disabilities can rely on the ADA by way of analogy to argue that DCF must afford them reasonable accommodates in rendering reunification services.
On August 1, 2017, Taylor & Sexton welcomed new associate, Megan Wade. Attorney Wade joins the firm after completing a year-long clerkship with Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Richard A. Robinson.
On July 18, 2017, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in Cathedral Green, Inc. v. Hughes, affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of our client, Cathedral Green, Inc.
On July 10, 2017, the Supreme Court transferred to itself the appeal in CIRMA a/s/o Somers v. Jackson, et. al. We represent one of the co-defendant-appellees in this case.
In July 2017, Attorney Jay Sexton was appointed as a co-chairman of the Connecticut Bar Association’s Appellate Advocacy Section. That Section “aims to improve appellate practice through meetings and CLE courses; determine the nature, scope, and interest in an appellate certification program; identify the resources and procedures required to maintain such a program; and identify other means to improve the appellate law practice in Connecticut.”
In July 2017, as part of the firm’s school law practice, Attorney Emily Graner Sexton negotiated through mediation a residential out placement for a student with special needs by demonstrating that the student’s mental health conditions precluded him from learning in a traditional school setting.
On June 6, 2017, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in In re Natalie S., 325 Conn. 833, affirming the judgment of the Appellate Court.
In June 2017, Attorney Emily Graner Sexton appealed an insurance company’s denial of a client’s claim for disability benefits based on a permanently debilitating medical condition and was successful in obtaining a reversal of the initial denial. As a result, the claim for benefits was approved and the client received all back payments owed and continues to collect under the terms of the policy.
On May 31, 2017, as part of the firm’s school law practice, Attorney Emily Graner Sexton successfully convinced a planning and placement team to recommend a residential out placement for a student with special needs after demonstrating that the student had failed to make meaningful progress in his prior school setting.
On May 18, 2017, Attorney Matt Eagan argued State v. Walton at the Appellate Court.
On May 16, 2017, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in State v. Jones, 173 Conn. App. 218, dismissing the appeal on mootness grounds.
On April 24, 2017, Attorney James Sexton argued Rockhill v. Danbury Hospital at the Appellate Court.
In April 2017, as part of the firm’s school law practice, Attorney Emily Graner Sexton represented the parents of a high school student, who had a 504 accommodation plan that the district was not abiding by, and she was able to work with the district to ensure proper compliance with the plan, which led to the student going on to graduate with honors.
On March 28, 2017, Attorney James Sexton argued Cathedral Green, Inc. v. Hughes at the Appellate Court.
On February 7, 2017, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in State v. Medina, 170 Conn. App. 609, affirming the judgment of the trial court.
On February 17, 2017, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in In re Unique R., 170 Conn. App. 833, affirming the judgment of the trial court.
On January 24, 2017, Attorney Michael Taylor argued In re Natalie S. at the Connecticut Supreme Court.
On January 19, 2017, Attorney James Sexton argued In re Elijah C. at the Connecticut Supreme Court.
On January 18, 2017, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certification to appeal in State v. Norman P. We represent the defendant-appellee.
On January 9, 2017, Attorneys James Sexton, Emily Graner Sexton and Marina Green filed an amicus brief with the Connecticut Supreme Court on behalf of The Arc of the United States and The Arc of Connecticut in Connecticut Coalition For Justice In Education Funding Inc., Et Al. v. M. Jodi Rell, Et Al.
On December 20, 2016, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in State v. Hayward, 169 Conn. App. 764, affirming the judgment of the trial court.
On December 7, 2016, the Appellate Court requested that In re Natalie S., which had been argued by Attorney Michael Taylor on November 14, 2016, be transferred to the Supreme Court where it would be consolidated with the issue that the Supreme Court had granted certification to on June 15, 2016. Attorney Taylor had previously requested the consolidation of the cases. On December 13, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order transferring the case to its docket. Both cases will be argued in January.
On December 6, 2016, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of conviction in State v. Norman P., and remanded the case for a new trial. The Appellate Court agreed with the defendant when it held that the trial court improperly excluded the defendant’s complete statement to police, which the defendant sought to have admitted after the prosecution made use of portions of the statement.
The Appellate Court determined that the trial court’s error was enough to reverse the defendant’s conviction, but also reached a second issue and held that the trial court erred when it refused to mark for identification certain counseling records of the complainant and refused to conduct an in-camera review of those records after the defendant made the requisite threshold showing pursuant to State v. Esposito. Taylor & Sexton successfully represented the defendant on appeal.
On November 29, 2016, Attorney Matthew Eagan argued State v. Jones at the Appellate Court.
On November 22, 2016, as part of the firm’s school law practice, Attorney Emily Graner Sexton successfully represented a parent and student in a contested planning and placement team meeting. The school district sought to remove the student from the school, we negotiated and the school district agreed to maintain the student’s placement, offer educational supports and services requested by the mother and provide 24.5 hours of compensatory education for services that the district had failed to provide from the beginning of the school year.
On November 14, 2016, Attorneys James Sexton, Emily Graner Sexton, and Marina Green filed a brief of Amicus Curiae on behalf of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association in State v. Jerzy G. The brief addressed the issue of whether a defendant can continue to seek redress in state court after he has been deported for reasons other than a criminal conviction. The brief argued that State v. Aquino should be read to exclude cases where the deportation is not caused by the defendant’s underlying conviction or admittance into an alternative sentencing program. If Aquino could not be read in such a manner, the brief argued that it should be overturned.
On November 9, 2016, Attorney Michael Taylor argued State v. Lester at the Supreme Court.
On October 31, 2016, a trial court modified the sentence of the convicted defendant in State v. O’Bryan. Attorneys Emily Graner Sexton and Marina Green represented the minor children in the case and worked closely with the defendant’s trial counsel to help secure her release and assist her in being able to return to her role as caregiver to her children.
On October 26, 2016, the Appellate Court rendered its decision in In re Baciany R., 169 Conn. App. 212, affirming the judgment of the trial court.
On October 11, 2016, Attorney James Sexton argued State v. Medina at the Appellate Court.
On October 6, 2016, Attorney Marina Green argued State v. Norman P. at the Appellate Court.
On October 5, 2016, Attorney James Sexton argued In Baciany R. at the Appellate Court.
In October, the firm launched its special education law practice through which it represents parents and students in special education proceedings and other related school law matters.
On September 12, 2016, Attorneys Marina Green, Emily Graner Sexton, and James Sexton represented Jose Vegas at a special parole hearing that concluded with the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles recommending his release. The hearing was held pursuant to General Statutes § 54-125a(f)(3). Mr. Vegas was released on September 30, 2016.
On September 8, 2016 Attorney Marina Green argued In re Unique R. at the Appellate Court.
On September 7, 2016 Attorney Matthew Eagan argued State v. Hayward at the Appellate Court.
On July 25, 2016 Attorney Michael Taylor testified as an expert in appellate practice in the case Frantz Cator v. Commissioner of Correction.
On June 21, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certification in the case of Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Joan E. Frank et al. In seeking certification, Attorneys Michael Taylor and Matthew Eagan argued that one of the defendants did not have sufficient minimum contacts with a foreign state such that the foreign court could exercise personal jurisdiction over him. They also argued that the Home Sales Solicitation Act applies to contracts for home staging services and that the trial court’s award of double damages was improper. The court granted certification on all three questions.
On June 15, 2016, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certification to appeal filed by Attorneys Michael Taylor and Marina Green in In re Natalie S. The petition was granted on the question of whether continuing reunification efforts for the respondent were required after the trial court had placed temporary guardianship with the out-of-state father.
Taylor & Sexton is pleased to announce that Attorney Emily Graner Sexton has joined the firm as Of Counsel. Having spent the past six years in the Appellate Bureau of the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney, she has argued more than 35 cases to our Appellate Court and Supreme Court. Bringing that wealth of appellate experience with her, she will continue to focus her practice on appeals in criminal, child protection, and civil matters.
On May 31, 2016, the Connecticut Supreme Court released its decision in In re Oreoluwa O. (S.C. 19501), reversing the decisions of both the Appellate Court and the trial court and announcing several important changes in Connecticut law. First, the Supreme Court held that the Department of Children & Families (DCF) still needs to make all reunification efforts that are reasonable even where those efforts are complicated by needing to provide services in foreign countries. In concluding that DCF needed to do more to investigate the medical services that would be available to Oreoluwa in Nigeria, the court appears to suggest, albeit in dicta, that such efforts may require DCF to work with its counterpart in a foreign country or to use non-governmental organizations, e.g., International Social Services—USA Branch, to offer services such as home studies, background checks, and in-depth assessments of relative placement resources, in cross-border reunification cases.
Second, the court explained that it was not improper under the facts of this case for the trial court to consider evidence of post-TPR Petition reunification efforts. This is a departure from prior precedent requiring that a court’s assessment of reasonable efforts be based on pre-TPR Petition evidence. See, e.g., In re Joseph M., Jr., 158 Conn. App. 849, 861 (2015).
Third, the court reiterated that the burden is on DCF to adduce evidence as to why it was reasonable for it not to provide a service to the parent(s) in the first place. Although the court did not explore the relationship between DCF’s burden to demonstrate that the failure to provide a service was reasonable and an appellant’s burden to show that any error was not harmless, the decision nevertheless should be relevant in future cases to rebut any effort by DCF to shift the burden of proving reasonable efforts to the parent.
On May 18, 2016, the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification to appeal the Appellate Court’s decision in In re Elijah C., 164 Conn. App. 518 (2016). In seeking certification, Attorneys Jay Sexton and Matthew Eagan argued that the state’s failure to comply with orders to continue reunification services should impact its ability to terminate an individual’s parental rights and that the reasonableness of the state’s reunification efforts should be assessed in light of its compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On May 18, 2016, Attorney Michael Taylor argued In re Raymond B. Jr. (A.C. 38927) to the Appellate Court. At issue was the proper remedy for a parent who is not given the In re Yasiel R. canvass prior to the start of a hearing to terminate her parental rights.
On May 9, 2016, Attorney Matthew Eagan argued In re Danyelah S-C. (A.C. 38710) to the Appellate Court. The appeal challenges a trial court’s decision to deny a mother’s request for new counsel without inquiring why she was making that request in the first place.
On April 11, 2016, Attorney Jay Sexton argued Allen v. Commissioner of Correction (A.C. 36362) to the Appellate Court. At issue is whether the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), should be presumed satisfied where deficient performance by defense counsel resulted in a structural error.
On April 5-6, 2016, Attorney Michael Taylor served as a faculty member at the CBA Appellate Advocacy Institute, a 2-day continuing legal education program designed to develop and sharpen appellate advocacy skills. Taught by experienced appellate judges and practitioners, the Institute is widely attended by attorneys from throughout the state. Attorney Marina Green attended the Institute as a student.
On April 4, 2016, Attorney Michael Taylor argued In re Natalie S. (A.C. 38655) to the Appellate Court. The case presents an important question of statutory construction governing whether the Department of Children and Families (DCF) is required to provide ongoing reunification services to a mother who is the subject of a neglect petition when her daughter is placed with the child’s father, who lives in a different state, rather than in the care of DCF. In addition, the case questions how thoroughly DCF must investigate an out-of-state parent when the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children does not apply.
Taylor & Sexton is pleased to announce that Ms. Janay Carter has joined our firm as a paralegal. With six years of prior experience as a legal administrative assistant and paralegal, Ms. Carter is a welcome addition to our team.
On March 1, 2016, the Connecticut Supreme Court released its decision in NPC Offices, LLC v. Kowaleski, 320 Conn. 519, 521 (2016). Adopting a broader definition of the term “professional office” in a right-of-way agreement than had the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for the appellant. Taylor & Sexton represented the appellant.
On February 29, 2016, Attorney Matthew Eagan argued In re Elijah C. (A.C. 38519) to the Appellate Court. The case involves two important questions of law: First, it explores the degree to which the state’s failure to abide court orders requiring that the state provide ongoing reunification efforts impacts the reasonable efforts analysis that a different court must undertake before terminating a parent’s parental rights. Second, it questions whether the state’s reunification efforts are reasonable when the state fails to utilize service providers that can accommodate a parent’s cognitive disability in accord with ADA requirements.
On February 11, 2016, Attorney Jay Sexton served as a panelist for a Connecticut Bar Association discussion titled “Supervisory Authority and the Connecticut Supreme Court.” A divided court has increasingly relied on its inherent supervisory authority, a power that allows the court to decide cases based on rules that are not required by existing law but are deemed preferable by the court as a matter of policy. The program featured a panel discussion on the history behind this inherent power, the court’s recent use of it, and how its use of this power might impact future cases. Attorney Sexton was joined by Attorneys Wesley Horton and Daniel Klau on the panel, and Attorney Jennifer Miller moderated the event.
On February 3, 2016, Attorney Michael Taylor argued Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Joan Frank Et Al. (A.C. 37507) to the Appellate Court. At issue in the case is whether the Home Solicitation Sales Act applies to contracts for the “staging” of a home to prepare it for sale, whether a single credit card authorization by a non-party to guarantee payment under a contract constitutes sufficient minimum contacts to warrant the exercise of long arm jurisdiction, and whether the trial court properly awarded conversion damages to remedy a breach of contract claim.
On December 9, 2015, Attorney Michael Taylor argued NPC Offices, LLC v. Kowaleski (S.C. 19408) to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Court is considering whether the termination of a right-of-way was barred by the by doctrine of disproportionate forfeiture and whether the use of the appellant’s premises by its prior owners violated a requirement in the right-of-way that the premises only be used as “professional offices.”
On December 1, 2015, Taylor & Sexton celebrated its 1-year anniversary. During its first year in operation, Taylor & Sexton won three appeals, hired two associates, and acquired new office space in downtown Hartford. As we grow, Taylor & Sexton remains committed to identifying compelling appellate issues, framing those issues in a way that benefits the client and respects the authority of the court and its procedure, and engaging in a written and oral dialogue with the judges or justices that is clear, thorough and compelling. Indeed, those hallmarks of appellate advocacy remain core firm values that we strive to achieve for each of our clients.
Taylor & Sexton is pleased to announce that Attorney Marina L. Green has joined the firm as an associate. A 2014 magna cum laude graduate from Quinnipiac Law School, she successfully argued a case to the Appellate Court during her third year. After graduating, Attorney Green served as an assistant clerk in the Office of the Appellate Clerk.
Taylor & Sexton is pleased to announce its acquisition of new office space in downtown Hartford, on the third floor of the historic McKone Building. Our new address is 363 Main Street, Third Floor, Hartford, CT 06106.
Attorney Michael Taylor argued In re Oreoluwa O., S.C. 19501, before the Connecticut Supreme Court on November 5, 2015. This case involves statutory and constitutional issues related to the various obligations of international parents, the department of children and families, and the Superior Court in cross-border reunification cases. Attorney Taylor can be watched arguing the case here.
On October 29, 2015, the Connecticut Law Tribune published the 2016 Edition of the Encyclopedia of Connecticut Causes of Action, which was co-authored by Attorney Michael Taylor and Attorney Daniel Krisch. This single-volume desk reference compiles all of Connecticut’s civil causes of action, with sections on common law actions, traditional statutory actions, miscellaneous statutory proceedings and administrative appeals. Each entry in the Encyclopedia describes the essential elements of a cause of action, identifies the relevant statute of limitations (if applicable), and has a “Notes” section that discusses key legal principles for that cause of action. This book can be purchased here.
Attorney Jay Sexton argued Doyle Group v. Alaskans For Cuddy, Et Al., A.C. 36900, before the Appellate Court on October 27, 2015. The case presents an important question regarding whether a party waives its right to pursue prejudgment interest when it fails to ensure that claim is actually pending before the court prior to the court rendering an otherwise final judgment.
On August 6, 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court released its decision in In re Yasiel R. (S.C. 19372), reversing the decisions of both the Appellate Court and the trial court and announcing two significant changes to the law of Connecticut. First, the Court revised the holding of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 (1989), to clarify that unpreserved constitutional questions of first impression may be reviewed on appeal. Under the old standard, a constitutional violation had to clearly exist and clearly result in an unfair trial in order for the Court to review it on appeal. (Which meant that if a constitutional claim never had been considered before, the constitutional violation would not clearly exist – because there would be no written decision explaining the constitutional rights involved – and thus might not be reviewable on appeal). Yasiel changed that rule to accommodate issues of first impression, now requiring only that the violation exist and result in an unfair trial, not that it clearly do so.
Second, the Supreme Court employed its inherent supervisory authority to add further protections for parents when the state seeks to terminate their parental rights. Under the Court’s new rule, in all trials to terminate parental rights, the trial court must canvass the parent prior to the start of the proceedings, so that the trial court can be sure the parent understands the scope of the parental rights at issue and the nature of the trial that is about to begin. Specifically, the trial court must be satisfied that the parent understands: (1) the nature of the termination of parental rights proceeding and the legal effect of a judgment terminating parental rights; (2) the parent's right to defend against the accusations; (3) the parent's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses; (4) the parent's right to object to the admission of exhibits; (5) the parent's right to present evidence opposing the allegations; (6) the parent's right to representation by counsel; (7) the parent's right to testify on his or her own behalf; (8) that if the parent does not intend to testify, the court may take an adverse inference from his or her failure to testify, and the significance of that inference; and (9) if the parent does not present any witnesses on his or her behalf, object to exhibits, or cross-examine witnesses, the court will decide the matter based only upon the evidence presented during trial. The Supreme Court’s majority decision can be found here; the first concurrence and dissent can be found here; the second concurrence and dissent can be found here. Taylor & Sexton represented the respondent-parent on appeal.
Attorney Jay Sexton co-presented a seminar on the mature minor doctrine, a legal doctrine that was at the center of the In re Cassandra C. appeal, at the American Bar Association’s National Conference on Children and the Law in Washington D.C. on July 24, 2015.
On July 13, 2015, the Connecticut Appellate Court issued its decision in Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction (A.C. 35846), reversing the decision of the trial court and remanding the case to that court for further proceedings. Anderson, the appellant, had walked out of the courtroom at the start of his habeas corpus trial and the trial judge immediately dismissed his habeas petition, with prejudice. On appeal, the Appellate Court held that the dismissal was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Because dismissal with prejudice is a measure of last resort, and because the trial court had several other available options that would have both addressed the appellant’s conduct and served the interests of justice, the Appellate Court held that the trial judge should have imposed a less severe sanction. The Appellate Court’s decision can be found here. Taylor & Sexton represented the appellant.
On June 25, 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court granted Taylor & Sexton’s petition for certification to appeal the Appellate Court’s decision in In re Oreoluwa O., 157 Conn. 490 (2015). In seeking review, Attorneys Michael Taylor and Jay Sexton requested consideration of both statutory and constitutional issues related to the various obligations of international parents, the department of children and families, and the Superior Court in cross-border reunification cases. The Supreme Court agreed to hear all four questions presented, setting the stage for an important decision that will lie at the intersection of immigration and child protection law.
Taylor & Sexton is pleased to announce that Attorney Matthew C. Eagan has joined the firm as an associate. A recent honors graduate from UConn Law School, Matt spent much of his third year clerking at a top Connecticut appellate firm and argued his first case before the Connecticut Appellate Court.
Attorney Jay Sexton will be a co-presenter at a seminar on the mature minor doctrine at the American Bar Association’s National Conference on Children and the Law in Washington D.C. this July.
Attorney Jay Sexton was a co-presenter at a seminar on Final Judgments & Preserving Issues for Appeal at the Connecticut Child Law Symposium on May 20, 2015.
The Connecticut Appellate Court decided Eigner v. Eigner (A.C. 36556) on May 19, 2015. Attorneys Jay Sexton and Michael Taylor represented the appellee, who won on appeal.
Attorney Michael Taylor argued In re Quidanny L. (A.C. 37383) before the Connecticut Appellate Court on May 11, 2015. The case presents an important opportunity for the court to more precisely define the statutes governing termination of parental rights in Connecticut.
Attorney Jay Sexton argued Eigner v. Eigner (A.C. 36556) before the Connecticut Appellate Court on April 21, 2015.
Attorney Jay Sexton argued Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction (A.C. 35846) before the Connecticut Appellate Court on April 16, 2015. This case concerns significant constitutional and common law rights governing a petitioner’s right to a hearing in a habeas corpus action.
The Connecticut Law Tribune will publish an updated edition of The Encyclopedia of Connecticut Causes of Action, a legal treatise co-authored by Attorney Michael Taylor. The current volume of The Encyclopedia of Connecticut Causes of Action is available here.
Attorney Jay Sexton argued In re Yasiel R., et al. (S.C. 19372) before the Connecticut Supreme Court on February 11, 2015. He argued for an important change in the law of Connecticut, which would require a judge to canvass a parent in a termination case before counsel for the parent can proceed without presenting witnesses for the parent or cross-examining the state’s witnesses.
Attorney Jay Sexton argued Atkins v. Commissioner of Correction (A.C. 35191) before the Connecticut Appellate Court on February 10, 2015.
January 9, 2015--Taylor & Sexton continues to receive media attention for its work in In re Cassandra C., a case that has become an international story in the past week. Attorney Taylor can be watched arguing the case here. Both Attorney Taylor and/or Attorney Sexton are covered in the following stories, amongst others: New York Times; Wall Street Journal; CBS Evening News; NBC News; CNN; WNPR; and the Connecticut Law Tribune.
This case likewise continues to generate a national discussion across various disciplines. NPR interviews a medical expert regarding an adolescent's capacity to make informed medical decisions like the one facing Cassandra here, and Appellate Attorney Dan Klau continues his coverage of the legal issues here. For a comprehensive listing of all news regarding this case, click here.
January 5, 2015 -- Taylor & Sexton receives national and international media attention for its role in In re Cassandra C., a case questioning whether the State can force a mature seventeen year-old woman to undergo chemotherapy against her will where her mother supports her decision to forego such treatment. Click on the name of the following news organizations to follow the story: ABC News; Fox News; Daily Mail; Huffington Post; Hartford Courant; NBC Connecticut; Fox CT; WTNH News 8. This case has also received coverage on various legal blogs, including Holding Court and Appealingly Brief, as well as on bioethics blogs.
December 1, 2014 -- Taylor & Sexton opens its doors with more than sixteen active appeals pending.
November 25, 2014 -- Connecticut Law Tribune covers the formation of Taylor & Sexton. Read the article here.