Langan v. Weeks

26 Citing cases

  1. State, Dept. of Family Services v. Peterson

    957 P.2d 1307 (Wyo. 1998)   Cited 8 times

    The Connecticut Appellate Court has addressed the question of whether a custodial parent assigns his/her rights to past, current, and future support payments in exchange for receiving public assistance. Langan v. Weeks, 37 Conn. App. 105, 655 A.2d 771 (1995). In Langan, the appellate court held that the mother assigned all her rights to support obligations, including past due arrearages, when she applied for the state aid. 37 Conn. App. 105, 655 A.2d at 782.

  2. State v. Cummings

    46 Conn. App. 661 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 31 times
    Upholding first and second degree stalking conviction when defendant followed, lay in wait for, and violated protective order benefiting victim multiple times over course of several months

    See State v. Crafts, 226 Conn. 237, 243 n. 3, 627 A.2d 877 (1993). Moreover, the state and federal due process provisions are coextensive and afford equivalent levels of protection. Langan v. Weeks, 37 Conn. App. 105, 118 n. 14, 655 A.2d 771 (1995). We, therefore, decline to analyze the claim separately.

  3. State v. Matos

    240 Conn. 743 (Conn. 1997)   Cited 39 times
    In Matos, the "defendant [Jaime Matos] challenge[d] the trial court's rulings that excluded evidence concerning the victim's affiliation with a gang, i.e., testimony that the victim was a gang member and that the gang was violent and had access to guns.

    v. Dept. of Liquor Control, [ 213 Conn. 184, 205, 567 A.2d 1156 (1989)]." Langan v. Weeks, 37 Conn. App. 105, 118, 655 A.2d 771 (1995). In the absence of a claim of deprivation of a fundamental right, we have scrutinized such questions under a rational basis test.

  4. Buehler v. Buehler

    211 Conn. App. 357 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)

    He also argues that the legislature's use of the word shall in § 46b-56c (d) creates a mandatory duty. See Langan v. Weeks , 37 Conn. App. 105, 121, 655 A.2d 771 (1995) (general rule is that word shall is mandatory, not directory). Although we agree generally with the plaintiff's statement of legal principles, we disagree with his claim that the court misapplied the statute when it issued the support order.

  5. Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ankerman

    74 Conn. App. 464 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 9 times
    In Ankerman, following a trial and the submission of posttrial briefs, the parties attended a hearing on February 5, 2001.

    We afford plenary review to the court's legal conclusions. See Verna v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 261 Conn. 102, 107, 801 A.2d 769 (2002); Langan v. Weeks, 37 Conn. App. 105, 112, 655 A.2d 771 (1995). "[T]he defect in a late judgment is that it implicates the trial court's power to continue to exercise jurisdiction over the parties before it. . . . A delay in decision beyond that authorized by the statute makes the decision voidable and, absent waiver, requires a new trial."

  6. Henriquez v. Allegre

    68 Conn. App. 238 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 79 times
    In Henriquez v. Allegre, 68 Conn.App. 238, 789 A.2d 1142 (2002) our Appellate Court stated, "Section 52-592 by its plain language, is designed to prevent a miscarriage of justice if the plaintiffs fail to get a proper day in court due to the various enumerated procedural problems... It was adopted to avoid hardships arising from an unbending enforcement of limitation statutes... Its purpose is to aid the diligent suitor... Indeed, our Supreme Court has long held that § 52-592 is remedial and is to be liberally interpreted..."

    Moreover, "[t]he guarantee of procedural due process requires that persons whose rights are to be affected have a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Langan v. Weeks, 37 Conn. App. 105, 118, 655 A.2d 771 (1995). Although Russell addresses only General Statutes § 52-593, the purpose and language of General Statutes §§ 52-592 and 52-593 are closely analogous.

  7. Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating Company

    49 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 19 times
    In Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating Company, 49 Conn. App. 1, 3 (1998), the Appellate Court stated that the ten day period for appealing from a decision of the worker's compensation commissioner "begins to run on the day on which the party wanting to appeal is sent meaningful notice of the commissioner's decision."

    Moreover, "[t]he guarantee of procedural due process requires that persons whose rights are to be affected have a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Langan v. Weeks, 37 Conn. App. 105, 118, 655 A.2d 771 (1995). We have adhered to these due process principles in cases where parties who did not receive timely notice have sought to open judgments that were more than four months old.

  8. Lauer v. Zoning Commission of the Town of Redding

    44 Conn. App. 542 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 7 times

    In general, the word "shall" is mandatory, not directory. Langan v. Weeks, 37 Conn. App. 105, 121, 655 A.2d 771 (1995). Use of the word "shall," however, does not always indicate that a clause is mandatory.

  9. Oakley v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities

    38 Conn. App. 506 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 25 times
    In Oakley v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, supra, 38 Conn. App. at 515, 662 A.2d 137, the Appellate Court rejected a claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to § 4–184a (b), governing administrative appeals, which was filed nearly five months after the final judgment was rendered.

    Because the issues of whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the plaintiff's motion five months after the final judgment was rendered, and whether a party may waive fees under § 4-184a by not expressly requesting them in the petition to the Superior Court raise questions of law rather than fact, those issues are subject to our plenary review. Gateway Co. v. DiNoia, 232 Conn. 233, 229, 654 A.2d 342 (1995); Langan v. Weeks, 37 Conn. App. 105, 112, 655 A.2d 771 (1995). With regard to the commission's claim that the amount the trial court awarded the plaintiff was unreasonable, this court has in other contexts held that the assessment of attorney's fees is a matter within the trial court's discretion.

  10. Holbrook v. Huntington Kildare

    2007 Ct. Sup. 13544 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007)

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Langan v. Weeks, 37 Conn.App. 105, 124, 655 A.2d 771 (1995). The defendant is ordered to install the toe drain as it designed and proposed in the December 1997, revised August 7, 1998, plans and the July 28, 1998 specifications.