Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc.

31 Citing cases

  1. State v. Morrissette

    265 Conn. 658 (Conn. 2003)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that § 52-263 applies to both civil and criminal appeals

    As we have indicated; see footnote 6 of this opinion; the state does not contend that its appeal in the present case is from a final judgment. Consistent with the language of § 52-263, this court concluded in Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 574, 87 A.2d 137 (1952), that the decision to grant a motion for a new trial is not equivalent to the decision to grant a motion to set aside a verdict. In Hoberman, the plaintiff sought to foreclose on a mortgage.

  2. Connecticut Light Power Co. v. Costle

    179 Conn. 415 (Conn. 1980)   Cited 139 times
    Recognizing exception to final judgment rule where appeal challenges authority of trial court “to act to set aside the judgment”

    In these circumstances, we agree that in order to determine whether this court has jurisdiction over the present appeal, we must determine whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant the motion to set aside the judgment. Although the granting of a motion to set aside a judgment and for a new trial is not ordinarily a "final judgment" within the purview of either General Statutes 52-263 or Practice Book, 1978, 3000; see State v. Phillips, 166 Conn. 642, 646, 353 A.2d 706; Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 574-75, 87 A.2d 137; an appeal which challenges the power of the court to act to set aside the judgment may be reviewed. Phillips v. Negley, 117 U.S. 665, 6 S.Ct. 901, 29 L.Ed. 1013; Stradley v. Cortez, 518 F.2d 488 (3d Cir.); Rinieri v. News Syndicate Co., 385 F.2d 818 (2d Cir.); Landscape Development Co., Inc. v. Kansas City Power Light Co., 197 Kan. 126, 415 P.2d 398. It is "generally recognized that any rule of nonappealability or nonreviewability of a decision of a court setting aside its former decision does not apply and that an appeal lies where the court, in setting aside its former decision, acted beyond its jurisdiction."

  3. State v. Phillips

    166 Conn. 642 (Conn. 1974)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that a decision to set aside an order requiring the defendant to repay state benefits is not a final judgment from which an appeal lies

    The threshold question which must be determined is whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Although this point was not raised in argument, this court has a duty to reject, on its own motion, any appeal in which it lacks jurisdiction. Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 574, 87 A.2d 137; In re Application of Smith, 133 Conn. 6, 8, 47 A.2d 521; see Lewis v. Rosen, 149 Conn. 734, 735, 181 A.2d 592; Riley v. Board of Police Commissioners, 145 Conn. 1, 5, 137 A.2d 759. The state's appeal to the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court was authorized at that time by 51-265 of the General Statutes which permitted "[a]ppeals from any final judgment or action of the circuit court . . . ." If the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal, this court also lacks jurisdiction and the action must be dismissed. Cf. Sheridan v. Planning Board, 159 Conn. 1, 10, 266 A.2d 396; Crouchley v. Pambianchi, 149 Conn. 512, 515, 182 A.2d 11; In re Application of Smith, supra.

  4. Town of Redding v. Elfire, LLC

    98 Conn. App. 808 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    Pleading called "petition for a new trial" was properly treated as motion for new trial where pleading, although served upon adverse party, was not filed in separate action and was denied rather than dismissed by trial court

    " (Citations omitted; emphasis added.) Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 576-77, 87 A.2d 137 (1952). Although the defendant had a marshal serve a summons and complaint for what it called a petition for a new trial, the defendant filed the summons and complaint in this action under the docket number of the case in which it was seeking a new trial.

  5. Gold v. Newman

    211 Conn. 631 (Conn. 1989)   Cited 7 times
    Discussing State v. Aillon, 182 Conn. 124, 126, 438 A.2d 30, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1090, "in which the defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal after a mistrial had been declared because the jury could not reach a verdict. We dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment . . ."

    Similarly, the granting of a motion for a new trial, which opens the judgment previously rendered, does not qualify as a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 575, 87 A.2d 137 (1952); see State v. Asherman, 180 Conn. 141, 143-47, 429 A.2d 810 (1980). The defendants' basic argument is that, although the policy against piecemeal litigation embodied in the final judgment rule ordinarily serves the goal of judicial efficiency, in this case it does not, because a second long trial might be avoided by resolving now the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the first trial.

  6. Charles Holdings, Ltd. v. Planning Zoning Board

    544 A.2d 633 (Conn. 1988)   Cited 41 times

    "The threshold question that must be determined is whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Although this issue was not raised by the parties, the court has a duty to dismiss, even on its own initiative, any appeal that it lacks jurisdiction to hear. L. G. DeFelice Son, Inc. v. Wethersfield, 167 Conn. 509, 511, 356 A.2d 144 (1975); Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 574, 87 A.2d 137 (1952); In re Application of Smith, 133 Conn. 6, 8, 47 A.2d 521 (1946)." Sasso v. Aleshin, 197 Conn. 87, 89-90, 495 A.2d 1066 (1985).

  7. State v. S R Sanitation Services, Inc.

    202 Conn. 300 (Conn. 1987)   Cited 36 times
    In S R Sanitation Services, Inc., we noted that, in denying the state permission to appeal under 54-96, the trial court recognized its "obligation `to play fair with the system'" by accompanying its denial with detailed explanatory memoranda and extensive additional articulation.

    Laurel Park, Inc. v. Pac, supra, 678 n. 1. The record before us clearly requires that we examine the threshold question of our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and to dismiss it if we lack jurisdiction. State v. Phillips, 166 Conn. 642, 644, 353 A.2d 706 (1974); Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 574, 87 A.2d 137 (1952); State v. Carter, 3 Conn. App. 235, 236, 486 A.2d 1138 (1985). The background circumstances disclosed by the record relevant to the determination of our jurisdiction include the following.

  8. Sasso v. Aleshin

    197 Conn. 87 (Conn. 1985)   Cited 61 times
    Opening of prior judgment of arrearage is not final judgment when court has not entered new judgment setting amount of arrearage

    The threshold question that must be determined is whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Although this issue was not raised by the parties, the court has a duty to dismiss, even on its own initiative, any appeal that it lacks jurisdiction to hear. L. G. DeFelice Son, Inc. v. Wethersfield, 167 Conn. 509, 511, 356 A.2d 144 (1975); Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 574, 87 A.2d 137 (1952); In re Application of Smith, 133 Conn. 6, 8, 47 A.2d 521 (1946). In order properly to invoke our jurisdiction there must first be a final judgment, except in instances not pertinent here. General Statutes 51-197a, 52-263; Practice Book 3000; cf. Laurel Park, Inc. v. Pac, 194 Conn. 677, 678 n. 1, 485 A.2d 1272 (1984).

  9. Kioukis v. Kioukis

    185 Conn. 249 (Conn. 1981)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that "proceeding" refers to the present modification action

    '" E. J. Hansen Elevator, Inc. v. Stoll, 167 Conn. 623, 627, 356 A.2d 893 (1975). Although this issue was not raised by the parties, this court will upon its own motion reject any appeal which is not appealable under Practice Book 3000. Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 574, 87 A.2d 137 (1952). Accordingly, we restrict our review to the April, 1980 orders modifying visitation and child support.

  10. State v. Asherman

    180 Conn. 141 (Conn. 1980)   Cited 46 times
    Dismissing petitioner's appeal of trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial and arrest of judgment

    It is clear that a judgment rendered upon a petition for a new trial is appealable. See Aillon v. State, 168 Conn. 541, 542, 363 A.2d 49; Black v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation, 150 Conn. 188, 189, 187 A.2d 243; State v. Kemp, 124 Conn. 639, 644, 1 A.2d 761. A motion for a new trial is interlocutory and an appeal lies only from the judgment to which the motion is addressed. Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573, 575-77, 87 A.2d 137; State v. Kemp, supra. Although the defendant obtained certification for review from the trial court pursuant to General Statutes 54-95 (b), this tack does not obscure the fact that many of the essentials necessary to support a petition for a new trial are absent. The defendant filed his motion within the technical confines of the docketed criminal case.