- Litigation & Dispute Resolution
- Dram Shop/Liquor Liability
|University ||Pennsylvania State University, B.A., 1989|
|Law School||Western New England College, School of Law, J.D., 1992|
|Admitted||1992, Connecticut; 1994, District of Connecticut; 1997, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals; 2007, Mohegan Gaming Disputes Trial Court; 2010, Supreme Court of the United States|
Connecticut Bar Association
Robert Rhodes is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who concentrates his practice in the area of Indian Tribal Law. Specifically, Robert represents clients, including the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, in both Connecticut State Court and the Mohegan Gaming Disputes Trial Court on issues ranging from Tribal Sovereign Immunity, the Indian Civil Rights Act, Dram Shop claims, and wrongful death claims to claims arising from premises defects, motor vehicle accidents, defective products and negligent security. This practice includes numerous trials before the Gaming Disputes Trial Court and appeals before the Gaming Disputes Appellate Court.
Robert also represents municipalities, school boards and government officials in civil rights, education, employment and general liability matters. In almost 20 years of practice, he has defended municipalities, police officers, mayors, selectmen, building officials and other public officials throughout Connecticut. In civil rights cases, he has defended a wide range of claims in both state and federal court, including claims of false arrest and excessive force to claims alleging First Amendment violations and violations of Due Process and Equal Protection. Robert also represents both municipalities and private businesses in employment claims before the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the EEOC and both state and federal court.
In education law, Robert has provided legal counsel to school boards on issues such as redistricting, labor and employment disputes, civil rights claims and expulsions. Robert has extensive experience in appellate advocacy and has argued appeals before the Connecticut Appellate Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nice guys finish last... or do they?
M. Lee Smith Publishers Connecticut Employment Law Letter, 05/02/2003
H & S Attorneys Highlighted in “Boston's Top Rated Lawyers”
|Reported Cases||Representative Matter: 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 and state law claims against the Town and various officials. The District Court held that the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights to be free of false arrest were not violated, and 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 and 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 and its zoning officials had violated his constitutional right to due process under the law and initially sought $125 million in damages.; The court decided that the substantive due process claim was unsupported by the facts, and the court entered judgment in favor of the town and its employees on that claim, and 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 and state law claims against the Town and various officials. The District Court held that the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights to be free of false arrest were not violated, and 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 and 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 and further claimed that he sustained serious bodily injuries which were caused by the scooter spontaneously accelerating and knocking him to the ground. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained a fractured hip and 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 and 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 and fall over parts used in the repair of a slot machine. The plaintiff claims that he sustained injuries to his head and vertigo, with medical specials and 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 and that barriers were properly placed around the area. This judgment was affirmed on appeal. Durante v. MTGA and 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 and its employees under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. Both cases involved claims against the MTGA and 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 and that the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity extended to claims based on commercial activities of the Tribe, including the operation of a casino and the service of alcohol.|
View Ratings & Reviews
|Profile Visibility |
|#330 in weekly profile views out of 4,400 lawyers in Hartford, Connecticut|
|#100,525 in weekly profile views out of 1,726,728 total lawyers Overall|