Section 52-196a

Citation: Section 52-196a
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

2,775 chars
demonstrating the unconstitutionality of the statute
       beyond a reasonable doubt.15
          Article first, § 19, of the constitution of Connecticut,
       as amended by article four of the amendments, provides
       that ‘‘[t]he right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.’’
       ‘‘This particular provision of our constitution has been
       consistently construed by Connecticut courts to mean
       that if there was a right to a trial by jury at the time of
       the adoption of the provision, then that right remains
       intact. . . . It is generally held that the right to a jury
       trial exists not only in cases in which it existed at
       common law and at the time of the adoption of [the]
       constitutional provisions preserving it, but also exists
       in cases substantially [similar] thereto.’’ (Internal quota-
       tion marks omitted.) Evans v. General Motors Corp.,
       277 Conn. 496, 509, 893 A.2d 371 (2006). ‘‘Litigants in
       a civil case have a constitutional right to have a question
       of fact decided by a jury. . . . Nevertheless, such a
       right may be subjected to reasonable conditions and
       regulations.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation
       marks omitted.) Beizer v. Goepfert, 28 Conn. App. 693,
       703, 613 A.2d 1336, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 901, 615
       A.2d 1044 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 973, 113 S. Ct.
       1416, 122 L. Ed. 2d 786 (1993); see also, e.g., General
       Statutes § 52-215 (excluding certain types of cases from
          15
             No appellate court in this state has engaged in a detailed analysis regard-
       ing the constitutionality of § 52-196a. But see Elder v. 21st Century Media
       Newspaper, LLC, 204 Conn. App. 414, 428, 254 A.3d 344 (2021) (rejecting
       claim that summary adjudications violate right to trial by jury), and Elder
       v. Kauffman, supra, 204 Conn. App. 833 (2021) (adopting reasoning in Elder
       v. 21st Century Media Newspaper, LLC, supra, 204 Conn. App. 414, to
       summarily reject claim that § 52-196a was unconstitutional as applied
       because its application infringed on constitutional rights to redress and to
       trial by jury). At least one Superior Court, however, has upheld the statute
       against similar constitutional challenges as those raised in the present
       appeal. See Gifford v. Taunton Press, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district
       of Danbury, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (July 11, 2019). Although the court’s
       analysis is not binding on this court, it is well reasoned and persuasive and,
       to the extent applicable, we adopt the reasoning in this opinion.
Page 30                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0
Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text
