Court Opinion

ID: 9696643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:53:45.028563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:24.722202
License: Public Domain

ZARELLA, J.,
concurring. Although I agree with the conclusion of the majority, I do not agree, for all of the reasons expressed in my concurrence in D’Eramo v. Smith, 273 Conn. 610, 626, 872 A.2d 408 (2005) (Zarella, J., concurring), that the legislative history of Public Acts 2004, No. 04-100 (P.A. 04-100), should be consulted to determine the legislative intent. Having concluded that P.A. 04-100 is a substantive provision that contains no language specifically directing that it be retroactively applied, the majority has no reason to consult extratextual evidence of the legislature’s intent. See General Statutes § l-2z;1 see also General Statutes § 55-3.2 Nevertheless, I fully agree with the majority’s constitutional analysis and ultimate conclusion that we cannot con*207strue a statute in such a way that would render it unconstitutional.

 General Statutes § l-2z provides: “The meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.”

 General Statutes § 55-3 provides in relevant part: “No provision of the general statutes . . . which imposes any new obligation on any person . . . shall be construed to have a retrospective effect.”