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

2,226 chars

for directed verdict or to set aside the jury verdict in
       favor of the plaintiff.’’ (Citation omitted.) Gifford v.
       Taunton Press, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of
       Danbury, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (July 11, 2019).
       Accordingly, we conclude that the anti-SLAPP statute
       does not, on its face or as applied, violate the plaintiffs’
       constitutional right to a jury trial under either the fed-
       eral or state constitutions.
                                     B
          The plaintiffs also argue that § 52-196a violates the
       separation of legislative and judicial powers as set forth
       in article second and article fifth, § 1, of the constitution
       of Connecticut. According to the plaintiffs, § 52-196a
       is constitutionally invalid because ‘‘it is essentially a
       Practice Book rule, and usurps the power . . . [of] the
       Judicial Branch to adopt rules of practice and govern
       court procedure and to govern the conduct of litigation
       in the state courts.’’ This argument lacks merit and
       requires little discussion.
         Article second of the constitution of Connecticut,
       as amended by article eighteen of the amendments,
       provides in relevant part: ‘‘The powers of government
       shall be divided into three distinct departments, and
       each of them confided to a separate magistracy, to wit,
       those which are legislative, to one; those which are
       executive, to another; and those which are judicial, to
       another. . . .’’ Conn. Const., amend XVIII.
          ‘‘[T]he primary purpose of [the separation of powers]
       doctrine is to prevent commingling of different powers
       of government in the same hands. . . . The constitu-
       tion achieves this purpose by prescribing limitations
       and duties for each branch that are essential to each
       branch’s independence and performance of assigned
       powers. . . . Nevertheless, [t]he rule of separation of
       governmental powers cannot always be rigidly applied.
       . . . Our state government is not divided in any such
Page 32                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text