Recycling, Inc. v. Comm'r of Energy & Envtl. Prot.

12 Citing cases

  1. Conn. Judicial Branch v. Gilbert

    343 Conn. 90 (Conn. 2022)   Cited 5 times
    In Gilbert, the plaintiff, the Connecticut Judicial Branch (branch), contended that the commission had no authority under § 46a-58 (a) to adjudicate claims pursuant to Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Title VII), 42. U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Id., at 105, 272 A.3d 603.

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc . v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 153, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018) ; see General Statutes § 4-183 (j). It is tempting to say that the referee's error in admitting evidence of the complainant's use of medications was harmless; see, e.g., Concerned Citizens of Sterling, Inc . v. Connecticut Siting Council , 215 Conn. 474, 488–89, 576 A.2d 510 (1990) ; insofar as the referee awarded $50,000 in damages, which falls at the lower end of what she identified as the prevailing range of awards for garden-variety emotional distress damages.

  2. Colandrea v. State Dental Comm'n

    221 Conn. App. 597 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc . v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 144, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018). The following additional procedural history is relevant to our resolution of this claim.

  3. Cohen v. Dep't of Energy & Envtl. Prot.

    215 Conn. App. 767 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    It follows that such a finding must be predicated on evidence produced by the intervening party alleging an unreasonable environmental impairment. See Recycling, Inc . v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 141, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018) ("The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA.... An administrative finding is supported by substantial evidence if the record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred."

  4. Kiyak v. Dep't of Agric.

    210 Conn. App. 311 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc . v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 153–54, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018). A witness may be qualified as an expert on the basis of knowledge, skill, experience, training, education, or otherwise.

  5. Green Dev., LLC v. Town of Exeter Zoning Bd. of Review

    C.A. No. WC-2018-0519 (R.I. Super. Apr. 20, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Mr. DiGregorio simply made an adverse finding against Petitioner, which in itself is not sufficient to prove bias. See Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & EnvironmentalProtection, 178 A.3d 1043, 1063 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018) (citing State v. Fullwood, 484 A.2d 435, 440 (Conn. 1984)).

  6. Natasha B. v. Dep't of Children & Families

    189 Conn. App. 398 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 139–40, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018). When looking at chronicity, a term that appears in the state regulations relating to the central registry, the department is to consider, inter alia, whether "there is a pattern or chronic nature to the neglect regardless of the measurable impact to the victim"; Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 17a-101k-3 (e) (3); and whether "there was a previous substantiation of neglect by the individual responsible for the current abuse or neglect for an incident or conduct unrelated to the current incident or conduct ...."

  7. PMC Prop. Grp., Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Regulatory Auth.

    189 Conn. App. 268 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)   1 Legal Analyses

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 139–40, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018). Moreover, "[a]lthough the interpretation of statutes is ultimately a question of law ... it is the well established practice of [our appellate courts] to accord great deference to the construction given [a] statute by the agency charged with its enforcement.... It is also well established that courts should accord deference to an agency's formally articulated interpretation of a statute when that interpretation is both time-tested and reasonable."

  8. Matthew C. v. Comm'r of Children & Families

    188 Conn. App. 687 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    The question of whether the right to fundamental fairness has been violated in administrative proceedings is a question of law over which our review is plenary. Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 149, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018). Although the parties in their appellate briefs direct us to cases that address the fundamental fairness of actual hearings held by various administrative agencies, no administrative evidentiary hearing was in fact held in the present case.

  9. Melendez v. Fresh Start Gen. Remodeling & Contracting, LLC

    180 Conn. App. 355 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 7 times
    Declining to consider claim that board improperly affirmed finding of commissioner that claimant was employee where party challenging finding did not file motion to correct

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection , 179 Conn. App. 127, 149, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018), citing FairwindCT, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council , 313 Conn. 669, 711, 99 A.3d 1038 (2014)."Workers' compensation hearings must be conducted in a fundamentally fair manner so as not to violate the rules of due process.... A fundamental principle of due process is that each party has the right to receive notice of a hearing, and the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."

  10. City of Danbury v. Klee

    No. HHBCV176036083S (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2019)

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Recycling, Inc. v. Commissioner of Energy & Environmental Protection, 179 Conn.App. 127, 139, 178 A.3d 1043 (2018). "Even as to questions of law, [t]he court’s ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the [agency] has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion ... Conclusions of law reached by the administrative agency must stand if the court determines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically follow from such facts."