Law360 (October 20, 2026, 6:12 PM EDT) -- The Connecticut Supreme Court will hear cases in its new term that could change the procedure for winning a strategic lawsuit against public participation and clarify what it means to be "in custody" for the purposes of habeas jurisdiction.

The justices also agreed to consider the denial of workers' compensation benefits to the widow of a police officer who took his own life while on duty.

Here's a look at the top cases of the new term, which runs through Oct. 29.

The Right Way To Beat a SLAPP

The legal guardian of a girl who accused her stepfather of sexual abuse is asking the justices to kill a defamation lawsuit that claims she spread false allegations, contending the Connecticut Appellate Court was wrong to restore the case after a trial judge dismissed it.

Janet Eick won the suit on a special motion to dismiss under the state's anti-SLAPP statute. Following an evidentiary hearing on the motion in September 2023, the trial court ruled that Marcio Rene Aguilar's complaint against her was based on the exercise of her right to petition the government on a matter of public concern and that, furthermore, she was entitled to qualified immunity and Aguilar did not prove she knew her statements were false.

But the Appellate Court reversed that holding in August 2025, concluding that the anti-SLAPP statute does not allow evidentiary hearings. The court remanded the case for a new dismissal hearing to consider only the pleadings and affidavits. Eick appealed.

At the high court, Aguilar said that he cooperated with a police investigation that did not result in criminal charges. A Department of Children and Families hearing officer found the allegations were unsubstantiated, overturning a DCF staff finding, and said they were "likely the product of coaching by Eick," his brief said.

He asked the justices to agree with the Appellate Court that allowing evidentiary hearings on anti-SLAPP dismissal motions would "improperly add to the statute."

Eick contended in her brief that she made her statements in good faith. She pointed out that Aguilar is the one who asked for the evidentiary hearing.

"By its very terms, General Statutes [Section] 52-196a(e)(2) permits additional discovery besides pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits," Eick wrote. "In addition, the court can order such discovery on its own. Thus, there is no reason that the statute should blanketly preclude evidentiary hearings."

Oral argument is scheduled for Oct. 28 at 10 a.m. at Quinnipiac University School of Law's Brooke A. Goff Courtroom in North Haven.

The case is Marcio Rene Aguilar v. Janet Eick, case number SC 21178.

Whether Officer's Suicide Was Related to Work

The justices will consider whether the Appellate Court was right to reverse a workers' compensation board decision and deny benefits to the widow of an East Hartford police officer who died by suicide in 2013.

Officer Paul Buchanan shot himself while on the clock, according to Patricia Buchanan's appeal brief. She said his death "was the culmination of a long series of traumatic events he endured while serving on the front lines as a patrol officer for decades."

In January 2013, he responded to a "horrific" apartment building fire; he was later found "babbling" at the scene and suffering from smoke inhalation, leading to hospitalization, the brief said. The incident exacerbated existing mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, and led to suicidal thoughts, she claimed.

After her husband's death, an administrative law judge rejected Buchanan's benefits claim under the Workers' Compensation Act, determining that his major depressive disorder — unrelated to his work — was actually the cause of his suicide. A review board reversed that decision, holding that Paul Buchanan's mental condition was aggravated by work.

The Appellate Court held that the review board should not have substituted its own factual findings on causation for those of the judge, restoring the denial.

The Danbury and Windsor police unions took Buchanan's side, telling the high court in a joint amicus brief that they "have first-hand experience in witnessing similar traumas described by the decedent and had four officers take their own lives since Mr. Buchanan's death."

"The unions fear, if not this decedent with this fact pattern, then potentially no surviving spouse would prevail in receiving benefits for a tragedy resulting from years of undeniable work-related traumas," the brief said.

Oral argument is scheduled for Monday at 10 a.m.

The case is Patricia Buchanan v. Town of East Hartford, case number SC 21182.

Defining "In Custody" for Habeas Cases

Back-to-back oral arguments will address the contours of habeas jurisdiction in Connecticut, seeking to clarify what it means to be "in custody."

In the first case, Stephen Riccio contends that his three-year conditional discharge following a 2014 Alford plea qualified as a restraint on his liberty, so he should be able to pursue his claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. A habeas court disagreed and dismissed his petition, holding that the only requirements he faced were that he commit no further crimes or threaten the victim in his case.

Riccio was sentenced to one year in prison with four years suspended for violating a protective order, third-degree assault and interfering with a police officer, but on the day of his plea, he was released because of time served, according to a case summary from the Connecticut Judicial Branch.

The Appellate Court reversed the habeas decision, finding that Riccio was serving a sentence that could be modified or revoked "without the procedural safeguards afforded to a member of the general public," the case summary said. The court also found no distinction between conditional discharge and probation or parole, which qualify as "in custody" under Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-466.

The state's corrections commissioner filed a brief asking the justices to toss Riccio's claim.

The petitioner in the second case, Jake Batura Ratches, pled guilty to violating a protective order and received a five-year sentence, suspended after six months, plus three years of conditional discharge that began in 2023.

The habeas court dismissed his petition because he was not "in custody" during his conditional discharge, citing the habeas decision in Riccio's case. Because the Riccio decision is still on appeal, Ratches has not benefited from the Appellate Court's reversal.

According to the judicial branch, Ratches appealed the denial and the Connecticut Supreme Court plucked the case off the Appellate Court's docket. It will be heard right after oral argument in Riccio's appeal.

Oral argument is scheduled for Thursday at 10 and 11 a.m.

The cases are Stephen Riccio v. Commissioner of Correction, case number SC 21197, and Jake Batura Ratches v. Commissioner of Correction, case number SC 21238.

--Editing by Brian Baresch.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.