Source: https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Default.aspx?ArchY=2010
Timestamp: 2018-07-19 05:27:47
Document Index: 670316636

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 17', '§ 36', '§ 14', '§ 4', '§17', '§17', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 30', '§ 17', '§ 14', '§ 19', '§ 12', '§ 1570', '§ 4', '§ 7', '§ 10']

Administrative Appeal Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions
Nov 8 2010 10:35AM by Booth, George
https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=204
January 2009 - November 2010 (reverse chronological order)
Hogan v. Dept. of Children & Families - SC18009 ("...appeal from department of children and families' decision to place plaintiff's name on statutory (§ 17a-101k) child abuse and neglect registry for injuries sustained by juvenile detainee while under plaintiff's supervision at juvenile detention center; whether registry scheme was unconstitutional as violative of due process and separation of powers, and constituted bill of attainder.")
AC28698 - Papic v. Burke ("On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that (1) federal law preempts the defendant’s authority to penalize him for fraud and misrepresentation, (2) the defendant improperly found that the plaintiff violated §§ 36b- 4 (a) and 36b-6 (c), and (3) the plaintiff was deprived of due process of law.")
AC29348 - Finley v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ("The plaintiff...appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing his appeal from the order issued by a hearing officer of the department of motor vehicles suspending his motor vehicle operator’s license for one year due to his refusal to take a chemical alcohol test in violation of General Statutes § 14-227b. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing officer’s findings that the plaintiff (1) was identified as the operator of the motor vehicle in question and (2) improperly refused to submit to a chemical alcohol test.")
AC29411 - Pierce v. Lantz ("The plaintiff...an inmate in a state correctional institution, appeals to this court after his administrative appeal, brought in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-166 et seq., challenging ‘‘regulations’’ of the department of correction (department) was dismissed in Superior Court. The plaintiff complained in his ‘‘petition,’’ filed with the department, that certain department regulations involving censorship of mail, compact discs and cassette tapes, as well as a 30 percent markup on compact discs and cassette tapes sold at the institution’s commissary were not properly promulgated regulations and, therefore, were unenforceable. It is the claim of the defendant commissioner of correction that the censorship restrictions concerning the mail, compact discs and cassette tapes, as well as the commissary markups were directives or rules and not regulations as defined under the UAPA and, therefore, that the plaintiff’s claim was properly dismissed by the trial court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")
Moraski v. Connecticut Board of Examiners of Embalmers & Funeral Directors - SC18248 (The plaintiffs contend that the trial court improperly concluded that: (1) their challenge to the board’s summary suspensions had been rendered moot; (2) the board had not abused its discretion or otherwise acted unlawfully in the procedures leading to the revocation of the license and certificate; and (3) the board had not abused its discretion in imposing the penalties of revocation and an excessive fine.")
Sastrom v. Psychiatric Security Review Board - SC17908, SC17909 ("In these certified appeals, we must determine whether the Superior Court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide the appeals brought by the plaintiffs, Roy Sastrom and Guy Levine, from the declaratory rulings by the defendant, the psychiatric security review board (board), in which the board concluded that §17a-581-44 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies is valid because it does not conflict with General Statutes §17a-599.")
Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Law - SC18175 ("In this tax appeal, we consider whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied the terms and provisions of General Statutes §§ 12- 217ee and 12 217n, which concern business tax credits for certain research and development expenses. The plaintiff, Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., appealed to the Superior Court, pursuant to General Statutes § 12- 237, from the decision of the defendant, Pamela Law, the commissioner of revenue services, denying the plaintiff’s request to exchange its research and development tax credit carried forward from income year 2003 for a credit refund in income year 2004 pursuant to §§ 12-217ee and 12-217n. The plaintiff now appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal after concluding that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the relevant terms of § 12 217n by prematurely attempting to exchange its research and development tax credit from income year 2003.")
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. Dept of Revenue Services - SC18153 ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a retailer can be both a ‘‘nonresident contractor,’’ pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) § 12-430 (7), and a ‘‘retailer engaged in business in this state,’’ pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) § 12- 411 (3), under the Sales and Use Tax Act, General Statutes § 12-406 et seq. (act). The plaintiff, Rainforest Cafe, Inc., appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the department of revenue services, in the plaintiff’s tax appeal brought pursuant to General Statutes § 12-422.2 The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly determined that a nonresident contractor could not also be a retailer engaged in business in this state, and that the plaintiff therefore was not relieved of its tax liability under § 12- 430 (7) even though it had paid taxes pursuant to § 12- 411 (3).")
Key Air, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services - SC18167 ("The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 12-407 (a) (37) (J) (iii) excludes from the sales and use tax pilot training services that a certificated air carrier obtained for its pilots flying qualifying aircraft that are owned by the carrier’s customers, who pay fees to cover those training costs. The defendant, the commissioner of revenue services, appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the tax appeal of the plaintiff, Key Air, Inc., from the defendant’s assessment of a sales and use tax against the plaintiff for the tax period from July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2000.")
AC30510 - Livingston v. Dept. of Consumer Protection ("The plaintiff... appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his administrative appeal. The defendant, the department of consumer protection, liquor control commission (commission), denied the plaintiff’s application for a renewal of his liquor permit for the Taurus Cafe´ in New Haven pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 30-47 (1). On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly (1) affirmed the decision of the commission upholding the remonstrance and thereby denied the renewal of his liquor permit on the basis of his failure to maintain employment and payroll records and to pay the associated taxes because the commission did not have the proper jurisdiction to adjudicate those matters and (2) affirmed the finding of the commission that the people who worked for his business were "employees."")
AC29373, AC30418 - Albright-Lazzari v. Commissioner of Children & Families ("The plaintiffs... appeal from the judgments of the trial court dismissing their appeal from the administrative decision of the department of children and families (department). The plaintiffs’ administrative appeal challenged the department’s substantiation of claims against Kimberly Albright-Lazzari of emotional neglect of her child and the placing of her name on the central child abuse and neglect registry (registry) maintained by the defendant, the commissioner of children and families (commissioner), pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-101k.")
Stash v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles - SC18534 ("The plaintiffs in each of these consolidated appeals... commenced administrative appeals in the trial court challenging the decisions of the defendant, the commissioner of motor vehicles, to suspend their motor vehicle operator’s licenses (license) for ninety days after... each failed a test utilized to detect the presence of alcohol in a subject’s blood.... The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly concluded that there was sufficient proof that they had operated their motor vehicles while having the statutorily proscribed elevated blood alcohol content because a mathematical calculation is necessary to convert the results of a chemical analysis test performed on breath into the blood alcohol content ratio contemplated by § 14-227b (o),5 and because the test results are subject to some margin of error.")
AC31054 - Okeke v. Commissioner of Public Health ("The plaintiff... appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the decision of the commissioner of public health (commissioner) denying his request to amend his son’s birth certificate. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly determined that the commissioner correctly interpreted General Statutes § 19a-42 (d) (1).") Dissent
SC18302 - Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services ("General Statutes § 12-412 (78) (aircraft manufacturing exemption) exempts from the sales and use tax the "sales of and the storage, use or other consumption by an aircraft manufacturer operating an aircraft manufacturing facility in this state of materials, tools, fuel, machinery and equipment used in such facility. . . ." This appeal requires us to resolve whether the legislature intended the aircraft manufacturing exemption to extend to items used in connection with research and development at an aircraft manufacturing facility.")
AC31465 - Reveron v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners ("The plaintiff... appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his administrative appeal from the final decision issued by the defendant, the state board of firearms permit examiners. The defendant, in its final decision, affirmed the revocation by the commissioner of public safety (commissioner) of the plaintiff’s state permit to carry pistols or revolvers (pistol permit).")
AC30720 - Hogberg v. Dept. of Social Services ("The plaintiffs... appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the department of social services (department). The dispositive issue on appeal is whether, pursuant to the department’s Uniform Policy Manual, the defendant properly determined that the medical conditions of Richard Hogberg did not constitute exceptional circumstances resulting in significant financial duress that would have warranted an increase in his minimum monthly needs allowance (allowance) under the medicaid program. See Department of Social Services, Uniform Policy Manual § 1570.25 (D) (3) (Uniform Policy Manual).")
AC31347 Marquand v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act ("The plaintiff . . . appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her appeal from the decision of the employment security board of review (board), which had denied her motion to open for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")
AC31522 - Charbonneau v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ("The plaintiff... commenced an administrative appeal in the trial court from the decision of the defendant, the commissioner of motor vehicles (commissioner), suspending his motor vehicle operator’s license for ten months and disqualifying him from operating a commercial motor vehicle for life. Following a hearing, the court upheld the commissioner’s decision and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the court’s decision.")
AC31487 - Albuquerque v. State Employees Retirement Commission ("To have standing to bring an appeal from the decision of an administrative agency, a person must be aggrieved by the decision. See General Statutes § 4-183 (a); Alvord Investment, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 282 Conn. 393, 399, 920 A.2d 1000 (2007); Terese B. v. Commissioner of Children & Families, 68 Conn. App. 223, 228, 789 A.2d 1114 (2002). The issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, Sharon Lee Albuquerque, was aggrieved by the decision of the defendant, the state employees retirement commission, denying her benefits pursuant General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 7-439g.")
SC18347 - Board of Education v. Board of Labor Relations ("The central issue in this case is whether an increase in the workload of certain teachers during the course of a school year constituted a unilateral change of a condition of employment under this state’s collective bargaining law. The plaintiff, the board of education of Region 16, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its appeal from the decision of the named defendant, the state board of labor relations (board), in which the board concluded that the plaintiff had violated General Statutes § 10-153e (b) when it unilaterally changed a condition of employment. Specifically, the board concluded that the plaintiff acted unlawfully when it unilaterally and substantially increased the workload of certain employees who were members of the defendant Region 16 Education Association (union). In addition, the board concluded that the plaintiff had engaged in unlawful direct dealing with the employees.
The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly: (1) upheld the board’s conclusion that the union was not required to prove that there was a unit wide employment practice in order to establish a prima facie case of a unilateral change; (2) concluded that the board’s determination that the union had established a prima facie case of a unilateral change of a definite and fixed employment practice was supported by substantial evidence; and (3) concluded that the board’s ruling that the plaintiff had engaged in unlawful direct dealing with the employees was supported by substantial evidence.")