Cases
Rep Matters: Supreme Court Upholds Tribal Immunity
In Lewis et al. v. Clarke, Daniel J. Krisch
Robert A. Rhodes successfully obtained a judgment of dismissal for their client, an employee of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority. In an opinion released March 15, 2016, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that tribal immunity must be upheld, overturning a 2014 decision by a state trial judge.
H & S Represented Municipality in Criminal Case
Halloran & Sage represented a municipality in a case where a protestor was arrested for criminal trespass when he refused to leave a meeting of Board of Selectmen as it went into private session. The protestor brought federal civil rights
state law claims against the Town
various officials. The District Court held that the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights to be free of false arrest were not violated,
the arrest did not violate the protestor's First Amendment rights. The Court also ruled that Connecticut's open meeting law's definition was not unconstitutionally vague
the arrest did not violate plaintiff's equal protection rights. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.
Robert Rhodes Obtains Favorable Judgment For Town of New Milford
Robert Rhodes recently obtained a favorable judgment in favor of the town of New Milford. A Hartford district court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against New Milford by a resident who claimed that actions of the town
its zoning officials had violated his constitutional right to due process under the law
initially sought $125 million in damages.
The court decided that the substantive due process claim was unsupported by the facts,
the court entered judgment in favor of the town
its employees on that claim,
then dismissed the remaining state court claims for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Presnick v. Town of Orange
Halloran & Sage represented a municipality in a case where a protestor was arrested for criminal trespass when he refused to leave a meeting of board of selectmen as it went into private session. The protestor brought federal civil rights
state law claims against the Town
various officials. The District Court held that the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights to be free of false arrest were not violated,
the arrest did not violate the protestor's First Amendment rights. The Court also ruled that Connecticut's open meeting law's definition was not unconstitutionally vague
the arrest did not violate plaintiff's equal protection rights. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.
Bellizzi v. MTGA
Robert Rhodes obtained a judgment in favor of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority in a claim brought by a patron of the Mohegan Sun who alleged that the motorized scooters rented by the Mohegan Sun were unfit for such purposes
further claimed that he sustained serious bodily injuries which were caused by the scooter spontaneously accelerating
knocking him to the ground. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained a fractured hip
an injury to his cervical spine as a result of the incident, with medical specials in excess of $100,000. Following a trial in the Gaming Disputes Trial Court, a judgment was rendered in favor of the MTGA on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prove proximate cause between the alleged defect in the scooter
the plaintiff's injuries. This judgment was subsequently affirmed on appeal.
Vitone v. MTGA
Robert Rhodes obtained judgment in favor of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority in a claim brought by a patron of the Mohegan Sun who alleged that he was caused to trip
fall over parts used in the repair of a slot machine. The plaintiff claims that he sustained injuries to his head
vertigo, with medical specials
lost wages in excess of $200,000. Following a trial in the Gaming Disputes Trial Court, a judgment was rendered in favor of the MTGA, holding that reasonable care was used in establishing the work area around the slot machine
that barriers were properly placed around the area. This judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Durante v. MTGA
Ross v. Crowder
Robert Rhodes recently had two separate matters against the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority dismissed from the Connecticut Superior Court on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the MTGA
its employees under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. Both cases involved claims against the MTGA
its employees based on the service of alcohol to patrons who subsequently became involved in motor vehicle accidents. In both cases, the Connecticut Superior Court held that the MTGA had not waived sovereign immunity to such claims
that the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity extended to claims based on commercial activities of the Tribe, including the operation of a casino
the service of alcohol.
