Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co.

10 Citing cases

  1. Morel v. Commissioner of Public Health

    262 Conn. 222 (Conn. 2002)   Cited 16 times
    Concluding that vendor could not take administrative appeal of his disqualification from federal supplemental food program because department hearing was required by federal regulation, not state statute

    Such an order is not a final judgment. See, e.g., Burdick v. United States Finishing Co., 128 Conn. 284, 288-89, 22 A.2d 629 (1941); Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522, 524, 12 A.2d 779 (1940)." Schieffelin Co. v. Dept. of Liquor Control, supra, 410.

  2. Lisee v. Commission on Human Rights Opportunities

    258 Conn. 529 (Conn. 2001)   Cited 24 times
    In Lisee v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities et al., 258 Conn. 529, 782 A.2d 670 (2001) our Supreme Court noted that "[a] trial court may conclude that an administrative ruling was in error and CT Page 13938-h order further administrative proceedings on that very issue... A trial court may alternatively conclude that an administrative ruling is in some fashion incomplete and therefore not ripe for final judicial adjudication."

    Such an order is not a final judgment. See, e.g., Burdick v. United States Finishing Co., 128 Conn. 284, 288-89, 22 A.2d 629 (1941); Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522, 524, 12 A.2d 779 (1940)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

  3. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection

    233 Conn. 486 (Conn. 1995)   Cited 15 times
    Detailing history of CRRA opposition to permit

    Without dictating the outcome of the further administrative proceedings, the [trial] court may insist on further administrative evidentiary findings as a precondition to final judicial resolution of all the issues between the parties. . . . Such an order is not a final judgment. See, e.g., Burdick v. United States Finishing Co., 128 Conn. 284, 288-89, 22 A.2d 629 (1941); Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522, 524, 12 A.2d 779 (1940)." Schieffelin Co. v. Dept. of Liquor Control, supra, 410.

  4. Schieffelin and Co. v. Department of Liquor Control

    202 Conn. 405 (Conn. 1987)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that remand by trial court ordering agency to undertake evidentiary inquiry into matter not addressed in previous agency decision was not appealable final judgment

    Such an order is not a final judgment. See, e.g., Burdick v. United States Finishing Co., 128 Conn. 284, 288-89, 22 A.2d 629 (1941); Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522, 524, 12 A.2d 779 (1940). The present appeal closely resembles the category of cases in which, because the administrative record is incomplete, appellate review of a judicial order of administrative remand is premature.

  5. Guerin v. Norton

    167 Conn. 282 (Conn. 1974)   Cited 19 times

    Batesville v. Ball, 100 Ark. 496, 500, 140 S.W. 712.' State v. Kemp, [ 124 Conn. 639, 643, 1 A.2d 761]." Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522, 525, 12 A.2d 779. Since the lack of a final judgment is a jurisdictional defect, the appeal must be dismissed. Sewer Commission v. Norton, 164 Conn. 2, 6, 316 A.2d 775; Cone v. Darrow, 148 Conn. 109, 112, 167 A.2d 852; Costecski v. Skarulis, 103 Conn. 762, 763, 131 A. 398.

  6. Ostroski v. Ostroski

    66 A.2d 599 (Conn. 1949)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that "the granting of a motion to open a judgment is an interlocutory ruling reviewable upon an appeal from the final judgment"

    The granting of a motion to open a judgment is an interlocutory ruling reviewable upon an appeal from the final judgment. Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522, 12 A.2d 779; State v. Kemp, supra. In Connecticut Mortgage Title Guaranty Co. v. DiFrancesco, 112 Conn. 673, 674, 151 A. 491, cited by the plaintiff, we were speaking of the right to review such orders, not the procedure by which they could be presented to us.

  7. Burdick v. United States Finishing Co.

    128 Conn. 284 (Conn. 1941)   Cited 11 times
    In Burdick v. United States Finishing Co., 128 Conn. 284, 22 A.2d 629, we held that a judgment of the Superior Court remanding a case to a workmen's compensation commissioner to hear further evidence and make an award upon a corrected finding was not a final judgment, paraphrasing the passage we have quoted from the Sherwood case and saying: "The judgment of the Superior Court did not finally determine the issues against the defendants but upon further proceedings before the commissioner they might still prevail."

    In the opinion we pointed out that in such a situation it was proper to enter a judgment sustaining the appeal with an appropriate direction for further proceedings by the commissioner, but if the commissioner had merely failed to take some step requisite properly to present the issue, a motion should be made to the court that he be ordered to do what was necessary; that the proceedings in the case were such as should have eventuated in a judgment; but that the court did not take this course, and in fact rendered no judgment; that therefore no appeal lay; and that if the court committed error in making the order that it did, this could only be presented upon as appeal from the final judgment rendered in the action. The case most in point upon the question before us Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522, 12 A.2d 779. In that case the commissioner, upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, opened an award denying compensation.

  8. Dacey v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities

    41 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 14 times

    Without dictating the outcome of the further administrative proceedings, the [trial] court may insist on further administrative evidentiary findings as a precondition to final judicial resolution of all the issues between the parties. . . . Such an order is not a final judgment. See, e.g., Burdick v. United States Finishing Co., 128 Conn. 284, 288-89, 22 A.2d 629 (1941); Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522, 524, 12 A.2d 779 (1940).' Schieffelin Co. v. Dept. of Liquor Control, [ 202 Conn. 405, 410, 521 A.2d 566 (1987)].

  9. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Massare

    338 A.2d 505 (Conn. App. Ct. 1975)   Cited 1 times

    (Italics supplied.) See also Guerin v. Norton, 167 Conn. 282, 283; Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522, 525. The issues here have not been determined in such a manner that it is beyond the power of the court to alter its decision.

  10. Giguere v. Delta Rubber Company

    428 CRD 2 (Conn. Work Comp. 1987)

    Thus, there now exists no final judgment below. Luliewicz v. Eastern Malleable Iron Co., 126 Conn. 522 (1940) We, therefore, vacate both appeals and remand this matter to the trial Commissioner for further proceedings.