Source: http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Default.aspx?CatID=1
Timestamp: 2018-05-26 06:13:53
Document Index: 452417285

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 45', '§ 1396', '§ 303', '§ 45', '§ 17', '§ 14', '§ 7', '§ 4', '§ 16', '§ 14']

May 18 2018 11:43AM by Booth, George
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3005
AC40272 - Adams v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (Administrative appeal; appeal from decision by defendant Commissioner of Motor Vehicles suspending plaintiff's motor vehicle operator's license; "The plaintiff, Nicholas Adams, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (commissioner), dismissing his appeal from the decision of the commissioner to suspend his motor vehicle operator's license, pursuant to General Statutes § 14-227b, for forty-five days and requiring an ignition interlock device in his motor vehicle for one year. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in finding that (1) he was operating a motor vehicle; (2) he refused to submit to chemical testing; and (3) the police had probable cause to arrest him for operating under the influence in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC40272 Appendix - Adams v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
Apr 20 2018 11:35AM by Booth, George
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2967
SC19726 - Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen (Statutory (§ 13a-39) petition by defendant adjoining landowners requesting definition of highway boundaries by defendant board of selectmen; administrative appeal from determination of board pursuant to statute (§ 13a-40); "This case returns to us after the remand ordered in Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen, 309 Conn. 608, 72 A.3d 394 (2013), for a trial de novo to determine the length and width of a particular highway known as Brockway Ferry Road. The plaintiff, Rhonda M. Marchesi, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her appeal, brought pursuant to General Statutes § 13a-40, from the decision of the defendants, the town of Lyme (town) and its Board of Selectmen (board), determining the lost or uncertain boundaries of the westerly end of Brockway Ferry Road pursuant to General Statutes § 13a-39. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that (1) the board and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under §§ 13a-39 and 13a-40, respectively, because it had not been judicially established as a condition precedent that Brockway Ferry Road was in fact a public highway, and (2) there were numerous other defects in the prosecution of the underlying petition before the board. Turning to the merits, the plaintiff also claims that the trial court's finding with respect to the width of Brockway Ferry Road was clearly erroneous. We disagree with the plaintiff's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Apr 13 2018 11:46AM by Booth, George
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2951
AC39579 - Berka v. Middletown (Administrative appeal; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly dismissed the self-represented plaintiff's administrative appeal on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff's failure to name the state of Connecticut Department of Public Health (department) as a party in his administrative citation. On appeal, the self-represented plaintiff, George Berka, claims first that the department acted improperly by not informing him that it needed to be named as a party and, second, that the trial court's dismissal of his appeal deprived him of due process. We disagree with the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff's failure to name the department deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude, however, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff's failure to serve his administrative appeal on the department. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Administrative Appeal Law Appellate Court Opinion
Mar 23 2018 12:07PM by Roy, Christopher
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2932
AC39371 - Metropolitan District v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ("In this civil action, the plaintiff, The Metropolitan District, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Feb 23 2018 11:47AM by Booth, George
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=1894
SC19815 - A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (Administrative appeal; "After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.
Feb 2 2018 4:51PM by Booth, George
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=1874
SC19754 - Bouchard v. State Employees Retirement Commission ("In Longley v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 284 Conn. 149, 177–78, 931 A.2d 890 (2007), this court held that the defendant, the State Employees Retirement Commission, had improperly interpreted statutes governing retirement benefits by failing to directly add a retiree's final, prorated longevity payment to the salary earned in the retiree's final year of state employment for the purposes of calculating the retiree's base salary. Although the commission contended in Longley that it had calculated retirement benefits in accordance with its interpretation since the 1960s; id., 166; this court afforded relief to the two plaintiffs in that case without expressing a view on whether the decision applied retroactively. Id., 178. The commission subsequently ordered the recalculation and award of increased retirement benefits, in accordance with Longley, of any person who had retired, or whose benefits were not finalized, on or after October 2, 2001, the six year period preceding the date of the Longley decision. The present case raises the question of whether all state employees, irrespective of when they retired, are entitled to have their benefits recalculated in accordance with Longley.
This question comes to us by way of an unusual procedural posture—a two count complaint bringing (1) an administrative appeal from the commission's decision denying a petition for a declaratory ruling filed by the plaintiffs, retirees Roger J. Bouchard, James J. Malone and James E. Fox, and (2) a declaratory judgment action on behalf of a class, represented by the plaintiffs, of all state employees who retired and began collecting pensions before October 2, 2001. The trial court granted relief to the plaintiffs in the administrative appeal, but denied relief to the class on the ground that the declaratory judgment count was time barred. The plaintiffs appealed from the trial court's judgment insofar as it denied relief for the class. The commission cross appealed from the judgment insofar as it granted relief to the plaintiffs, and raised numerous alternative procedural and substantive grounds for affirming the judgment denying relief to the class. We conclude that the plaintiffs' claims for recalculation of benefits were time barred, and for the reasons supporting that conclusion neither they nor the class is entitled to relief. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's judgment")
Feb 1 2018 3:58PM by Booth, George
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=1867
SC19701 - Valliere v. Commissioner of Social Services ("In this appeal, we consider the relationship between General Statutes § 45a-655 (b) and (d) in determining whether a spousal support order previously rendered by the Probate Court is binding on the defendant, the Commissioner of Social Services (commissioner), when calculating the allowance that may be diverted to the support of the community spouse of a Medicaid eligible institutionalized person pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-5, a provision originally enacted as part of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (catastrophic coverage act), Pub. L. No. 100-360, § 303 (a) (1) (B), 102 Stat. 683, 754. The commissioner appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the administrative appeal brought by the plaintiffs, Paul Valliere (Paul) and Ellen Shea, conservatrix and executrix of the estate of Marjorie Valliere (Marjorie), from the commissioner's decision to set a community spouse allowance for Paul in the amount of $0 with respect to the Medicaid benefit that paid for his wife Marjorie's long-term residential care. On appeal, the commissioner contends that, because § 45a-655 (b) and (d) must be construed in light of the federal single state agency requirement that is implemented by General Statutes § 17b-261b, the trial court improperly concluded that the community spouse allowance was controlled by a spousal support order rendered by the Probate Court prior to the application for, and award of, Medicaid benefits. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=868
Environmental Law Appellate Court Opinion
Jan 5 2018 11:37AM by Zigadto, Janet
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=827
AC38868 - Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & Enviromental Protection (Administrative appeal; "The plaintiff, Recycling, Inc. (RCI), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection (commissioner), denying its application for an individual permit to construct and operate a volume reduction facility (individual permit) and revoking its general permit to construct and operate certain recycling facilities (general permit). On appeal, RCI claims that the trial court erred in dismissing its appeal because: (1) the denial and revocation was not warranted under the circumstances of this case; (2) the hearing officer violated its rights to a fair hearing by applying an erroneous standard of review; (3) the hearing officer erroneously excluded relevant evidence; and (4) the commissioner engaged in improper conduct during the proceedings. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Oct 20 2017 12:00PM by Roy, Christopher
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=717
AC39418 – Fernschild v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ("The plaintiff, Matthew Fernschild, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (commissioner), ordering a six month suspension of his license to operate a motor vehicle, pursuant to General Statutes § 14-227b, for his refusal to submit to a chemical alcohol test. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of the hearing officer that the plaintiff refused to submit to a chemical analysis of his breath. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=639
Jun 30 2017 11:33AM by Booth, George
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=536
SC19831 - Maturo v. State Employees Retirement Commission (Administrative appeal; "The plaintiff, Joseph Maturo, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court upholding the declaratory ruling of the defendant, the State Employees Retirement Commission, and dismissing his administrative appeal. The plaintiff retired in 1991 from his position as a firefighter with the town of East Haven and was awarded a disability pension through his membership in the municipal employees retirement system (retirement system). He subsequently was elected to the position of mayor of East Haven in 1997, and served in that capacity until 2007, when he lost his reelection bid. During that time, the commission and the retirement services division of the Office of the State Comptroller (collectively, the agencies), which jointly administer the retirement system, interpreted the Municipal Employees' Retirement Act (act), General Statutes § 7-425 et seq., to provide that a retired member, who is reemployed by a municipality that participates in the retirement system, may continue to receive a retirement pension if he or she is reemployed in a position, such as the mayor of East Haven, that the municipality has not designated for participation in the system (nonparticipating position). In 2009, however, the agencies concluded that they had misconstrued the act in this regard and that a retiree cannot continue to collect a pension while reemployed in any full-time position with a participating municipality. Accordingly, when the plaintiff was again elected mayor in 2011, the retirement services division suspended his pension, a decision that both the commission and the trial court, Schuman, J., subsequently affirmed. On appeal, the plaintiff's primary contention is that the agencies improperly construed the reemployment and disability pension provisions of the act, and that he is not barred from receiving a disability pension while serving as the mayor of East Haven. The plaintiff also challenges the trial court's conclusions that he did not rely to his detriment on the agencies' previous interpretation of the act and that the commission did not violate his rights to equal protection and due process of law. Finding no error, we affirm.")
Jun 21 2017 3:29PM by Booth, George
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=519
AC39068 - Godaire v. Dept. of Social Services (Administrative appeal; "The self-represented plaintiff, Raymond Godaire, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his appeal from the final decision of the defendant the Department of Social Services (department). The decision appealed from discontinued the plaintiff's benefits under the department's Medical Assistance to the Aged, Blind, and Disabled program (program or Husky C) on the ground that he had not met the program's spenddown requirements. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the transfer of his administrative appeal from the judicial district of New London to the judicial district of New Britain did not violate his due process rights by denying him reasonable access to the courts, and (2) failed to conclude that his appeal should be sustained because the hearing officer's decision was based on "faulty records" and "records changed by the department . . . ." We reverse the judgment of the trial court for the reason that substantial rights of the plaintiff have been prejudiced because the hearing officer's decision was made upon unlawful procedure. See General Statutes § 4-183 (j).")
Jun 19 2017 11:46AM by Roy, Christopher
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=510
AC38604 - Pajor v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act ("The plaintiff, John Pajor, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Employment Security Appeals Division Board of Review (board), which dismissed his appeal from the dismissal of his challenge to a finding that he had been overpaid certain unemployment compensation benefits. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) applied the wrong standard of review to the board’s decision on his motion to correct findings, and (2) concluded that the board’s determination that the plaintiff did not show good cause for failing to attend a hearing on remand before an appeals referee was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Jun 19 2017 11:30AM by Zigadto, Janet
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=507
SC19799 - Middlebury v. Connecticut Siting Council ("This appeal concerns a proviso contained in General Statutes § 16-50p, which precludes the defendant, Connecticut Siting Council, from granting a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need (certificate) for operation of an electric generating or storage facility unless the council, among other things, 'considers neighborhood concerns' with respect to specified factors. The plaintiffs, the town of Middlebury and sixteen residents and entities situated in Middlebury and adjacent towns, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their appeal from the decision of the council granting the petition of CPV Towantic, LLC (CPV), to open and modify a certificate for an electric generating facility. The plaintiffs' principal claim is that the trial court improperly determined that the council adequately had considered neighborhood concerns, despite the absence of express findings or analysis in its decision addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about adverse impacts from the facility. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
May 23 2017 11:01AM by Zigadto, Janet
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=466
The 2017 edition of LexisNexis Practice Guide: Connecticut Administrative Law and Practice has been received by all of our law libraries. Each chapter of this guide offers analysis, strategies, checklists, and tips. The table of contents is listed below:
Chapter 1. Introduction to Administrative Law
Chapter 2. Rulemaking
Chapter 3. Freedom of Information - Public Meetings
Chapter 4. Freedom of Information - Public Records
Chapter 5. Contested Cases - The Prehearing Process
Chapter 6. The Anatomy of a Contested Case
Chapter 7. The Post-Hearing Process
Chapter 8. Collateral Estoppel, Res Judicata, Stare Decisis and the Equitable Defenses
Chapter 9. Overview of Local Administrative Law
Chapter 10. Ethical Issues for the Administrative Lawyer
Chapter 11. Where to Find Administrative Agency Materials
For additional information, please contact your local Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library.
May 15 2017 11:30AM by Booth, George
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=448
SC19577 - Estate of Brooks v. Commissioner of Revenue Services (Administrative appeal; estate tax; "The plaintiffs, the coexecutors of the estate of Helen B. Brooks, appeal from the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the Commissioner of Revenue Services. The trial court upheld the decision of the defendant to deny the plaintiffs' request for a refund of estate taxes paid by the estate of the decedent, Helen B. Brooks (decedent). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the defendant had statutory authority to include in the decedent's gross estate the value of certain qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) in which the decedent enjoyed a life interest and levy an estate tax upon such property. The plaintiffs also assert that the defendant's construction of the statute resulted in a violation of the plaintiffs' due process rights. We disagree with the plaintiffs and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
Apr 17 2017 12:21PM by Roy, Christopher
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=404
AC38895 - Prendergast. V. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ("The plaintiff, Hart Prendergast, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, suspending his license to operate a motor vehicle pursuant to General Statutes § 14-227b. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) found that there was substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that there was probable cause to arrest him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or intoxicating liquor or drugs, and (2) concluded that his due process rights were not violated when the hearing officer continued the hearing to subpoena the police officers involved in the plaintiff’s arrest. We affirm the judgment of the court.")