Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, III has been named as one of Connecticut's 2011 Rising Stars by Super Lawyers magazine.
–––
Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, III has been selected by the Hartford Business Journal as one of the top "40 Under 40" for 2011. The Hartford Business Journal presents the “40 Under 40” award to individuals under 40 who have leadership roles in the Greater Hartford region.
–––
Attorney Paul Doyle is currently serving in his third term as the state senator from the 9th Senatorial District (Cromwell, Middletown, Newington, Rocky Hill, and Wethersfield). He currently serves as Chair of the General Law Committee and Vice Chair of the Judiciary and Housing Committees and sits on the Regulations Review Committee. See www.senatedems.ct.gov/Doyle.html for more information.
–––
Jaclyn Zolnik has successfully completed examinations and is now entitled to use of the “CP” professional credential as a Certified Paralegal. She is among just 23 paralegals in the State of Connecticut and 16,015 paralegals nationwide to have attained this goal. Established in 1976, the CP examination program is a voluntary professional credentialing program developed by the National Association of Legal Assistants and administered by a board composed of paralegals, members of the American Bar Association and members of the field of education active in paralegal training.
–––
Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, III has been appointed to the Board of Directors of the Bushnell Park Foundation. The mission of the Bushnell Park Foundation is to preserve and protect historic Bushnell Park in Hartford for the enjoyment of current and future generations. For more details see www.bushnellpark.org.
–––

SELECTED REPORTED DECISIONS

Catania v. Catania – Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, Jr., representing the Defendant (husband), obtained a favorable decision at trial on complex deferred compensation and social security offset issues. The trial court offset the value of the wife's social security benefits, as our client was a police officer without social security benefits. The trial court agreed with our valuations of the parties' deferred compensation assets.

Liberty Life Insurance v. Barrett, et al - After one year of litigation, Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, III was able to come to a resolution in this federal court matter. The issues stemmed from beneficiaries designated on life insurance policies.

Clark v. Garmendia – Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, III, representing the Defendant (mother), successfully petitioned the Court for an order permitting the mother and child to relocate to France. The Defendant had remarried a French citizen, but the Plaintiff (father) opposed any move from the State of Connecticut. The Court, after consideration of testimony and legal argument, ruled that relocation to France was in the best interests of the child.

Boyle v. Jarosz – Handled by Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, III, this matter was the first of its kind in the State of Connecticut. The parties, a gay couple, entered a civil union in October of 2005 after Connecticut approved such institutions. Prior to such civil union, the parties had married in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Attorney Kennedy, after argument to the Court, successfully dissolved both the Connecticut civil union and Massachusetts marriage. Attorney Kennedy, III based his arguments in large part on the Full Faith and Credit doctrine. This decision was adverse to legislative opinion on the matter.

LaCore v. LaCore – Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, Jr. successfully represented the Plaintiff in enforcing the terms of a prenuptial agreement. The Defendant had argued that she was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult with independent counsel prior to the signing of the prenuptial. At trial the Court ruled in our client’s favor, with the terms of the agreement upheld.

Hartford Whalers Hockey Club v. The Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co – Attorney Daniel H. Kennedy, Jr. successfully represented the Hartford Whalers, former NFL hockey franchise, in this matter before the trial court and Connecticut Supreme Court. The matter concerned advertising fees owed to the Whalers. Both the trial court and Supreme Court ruled in our client's favor. This case involved issues of unjust enrichment and agency.