Robinson v. V. D. (2024)

Citation: Robinson v. V. D. (2024)
Parent Document: Robinson v. V. D. (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-11-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10282961/robinson-v-v-d/ ↗

Full Text

2,359 chars

of public concern under the public official or public
         figure category [of § 52-196a (a) (1) (D)] because the
         defendant had failed to establish that the plaintiffs’ posi-
         tions gave them substantial control or responsibility
         over governmental affairs or that there was a significant
         public interest in either position that went beyond the
         general interest in all public sector employees. Accord-
         ingly, the court concluded that the defendant had failed
         to meet his burden of showing, by a preponderance of
         evidence, that the complaint was based on the exercise
         of his right of free speech, to petition the government, or
         of association.’’ (Footnotes omitted; internal quotation
         marks omitted.) Id., 1004–1007.
            The defendant appealed from the trial court’s deci-
         sion to this court, following which the plaintiffs filed a
         motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.
         The defendant then moved to stay proceedings until
         our Supreme Court issued a decision in Pryor v. Brig-
         nole, 346 Conn. 534, 292 A.3d 701 (2023), in which the
         parties also had raised the issue of whether an appeal
         from the denial of a § 52-196a special motion to dismiss
         is an appealable final judgment. Id., 536–37. This court
         granted the defendant’s motion for a stay on September
         29, 2021, and deferred ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion
         to dismiss. In July, 2022, pursuant to Practice Book
         § 65-1, our Supreme Court transferred this appeal to
         itself and ordered the parties to file appellate briefs
         addressing only the threshold jurisdictional issue.
            On May 2, 2023, our Supreme Court released its deci-
         sion in Smith v. Supple, 346 Conn. 928, 293 A.3d 851
         (2023), in which it held that the denial of a special
         motion to dismiss that raises a colorable claim to the
         anti-SLAPP protections of § 52-196a is an immediately
         appealable final judgment. Id., 964. That same day, the
         court also released its decisions in Pryor v. Brignole,
         supra, 346 Conn. 534, and in the present appeal.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 7

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text