Sabatini and Associates, LLC Attorneys at Law :: Newington :: Hartford :: Connecticut

The Connecticut trial lawyers at Sabatini and Associates, LLC routinely represent clients involved in probate litigation.  The most common dispute is a will contest. When one or more provisions of the will are called into question, the disagreement may lead to litigation. The lawyers at Sabatini and Associates, LLC have experience in drafting, interpreting, and administering wills, as well as handling the lawsuits that arise surrounding these documents. We have successfully represented clients contesting wills and have successfully defended estates in will contests

Probate litigation can also arise in cases of fiduciary negligence by a personal representative, guardian, or trustee. When a person in one of these positions takes actions for their own interests instead of the person they are representing, they have committed a breach of fiduciary duty. We represent clients in cases asserting fiduciary negligence.  If you have a probate matter, contact one of our Connecticut probate litigation lawyers.

If you have been injured by a drunk driver, it is vital that you contact one of our Hartford personal injury lawyers as soon as possible.  Why? – because not only is the drunk driver liable for your injuries and losses, but the establishment that served the alcohol to the drunk driver.  You have 120 days to put the dram shop on written notice of your intention of filing a claim against it.  If written notice is not given within the 120 days, you will be prohibited from bringing a dram shop claim against the establishment.

Connecticut courts are now refusing to label a discriminatory statement or comment as stray or not.  Instead, and correctly so, Connecticut courts are applying a four factor test in weighing the probative value of the comments.  The four factors are:

1. who made the remark, i.e., a decisionmaker, a supervisor, or a low-level co-worker;
2. when the remark was made in relation to the employment decision at issue;
3. the content of the remark, i.e., whether a reasonable juror could view the remark as discriminatory; and
4. the context in which the remark was made, i.e., whether it was related to the decisionmaking process.

In applying the test, the Court need not determine whether the remarks by employer’s agents are stray. Instead, the Court will decide whether the remarks are sufficiently probative of unlawful discrimination such that the jury could reasonably find that the Plaintiff was terminated because of unlawful discrimination.