Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

East Hampton v. Dept. of Public Health

80 Conn. App. 248 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
East Hampton v. Dept. of Public Health

8 Citing cases

  1. Ferguson Mechanical Co. v. Dept. of Public Works

    282 Conn. 764 (Conn. 2007)   Cited 45 times

    " (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Herman v. Division of Special Revenue, supra, 193 Conn. 382-83; see also Rybinski v. State Employees' Retirement Commission, 173 Conn. 462, 471, 378 A.2d 547 (1977) (commission's decision concerning requested change of retirement plans not hearing where there was "no statutory requirement that `an opportunity for hearing' be provided . . . [and] no hearing was `in fact held' by the commission"); East Hampton v. Dept. of Public Health, 80 Conn. App. 248, 255, 834 A.2d 783 (2003) ("UAPA mandates, as a predicate for contested case status, that a party must have enjoyed a statutory right to a hearing" [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 915, 841 A.2d 221 (2004). Section 4b-100 (b) requires that the commissioner "adopt regulations . . . establishing a procedure for promptly hearing and ruling on claims alleging a violation or violations of [the public bidding statutes].

  2. Town of East Hampton v. Department of Public Health

    267 Conn. 915 (Conn. 2004)   Cited 1 times

    Decided January 22, 2004 The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 80 Conn. App. 248 (AC 23275), is denied. Jean M. D'Aquila, in support of the petition.

  3. State v. Aloi

    86 Conn. App. 363 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 12 times
    In Connecticut v. Aloi, 86 Conn.App. 363 (2004), the Connecticut Appellate Court considered whether section 53a-167a proscribes verbal conduct that interferes with an officer's performance of his duties.

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) East Hampton v. Dept. of Public Health, 80 Conn. App. 248, 255-56, 834 A.2d 783, cert. denied, 267 Conn. 915, 841 A.2d 221 (2004); see also Hatt v. Burlington Coat Factory, 263 Conn. 279, 310, 819 A.2d 260 (2003). The court is likewise "not permitted to supply statutory language that the legislature may have chosen to omit."

  4. Labow v. Labow

    85 Conn. App. 746 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 25 times
    In Labow v. Labow, 85 Conn.App. 746, 751, 858 A.2d 882 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906, 868 A.2d 747 (2005), the Appellate Court implied that oral argument is a proper forum for an opposing party to object to a procedural deficiency.

    (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) East Hampton v. Dept. of Public Health, 80 Conn. App. 248, 251, 834 A.2d 783 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 915, 841 A.2d 221 (2004).The accidental failure of suit statute provides in relevant part: "If any action . . . has failed one or more times to be tried on its merits because of insufficient service or return of the writ . . . or because the action has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, or the action has been otherwise avoided or defeated by the death of a party or for any matter of form . . . the plaintiff . . . may commence a new action . . . for the same cause at any time within one year after the determination of the original action or after the reversal of the judgment."

  5. Plante v. State

    844 A.2d 934 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) East Hampton v. Dept. of Public Health, 80 Conn. App. 248, 251, 834 A.2d 783 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 915, 841 A.2d 221 (2004). I

  6. Weissberg v. Evans

    2004 Conn. Super. Ct. 15774 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

    Furthermore, given the statutory scheme the language of the Appellate Court, as the, defendant points out, is controlling. In East Hampton v. Department of Public Health, 80 Conn.App. 248, 258-59 (2003) the court said: "Stated differently, even if a proceeding was in fact held it lacked the essential element of a right to be heard and thus remained gratuitous and did not qualify as a 'statutorily required hearing.' As a result, there could not have been a contested case to which the provisions of the UAPA might apply.

  7. PURN v. MAKSUTI

    2004 Ct. Sup. 7121 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

    (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) East Hampton v. Department of Public Health, 80 Conn. App. 248, 253 (2003), citing State v. Courchesne, 262 Conn. 537, 577-78, 816 A.2d 562 (2003). In reviewing the text of § 30-102, the court does not find any mandatory language which requires the appointment of a representative as a condition precedent for the one hundred twenty day exclusion to apply.

  8. Chatterjee v. Commissioner of Rev. Ser.

    2004 Conn. Super. Ct. 4492 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) East Hampton v. Department of Public Health, 80 Conn. App. 248, 252, 834 A.2d 783 (2003). However, as the court noted in Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. Dubno, 204 Conn. 137, 145, 527 A.2d 679 (1987), the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-166 et seq., expressly excludes tax appeals and "a party appealing from an adverse ruling of the commissioner of revenue services is 'entitled to a plenary review of its challenge of its tax assessment, and is not limited to an administrative appeal under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.' " Id., 145, citing Texaco Refining Marketing Co. v. Commissioner, 202 Conn. 583, 588, 522 A.2d 771 (1987).