State ex Rel. Barlow v. Kaminsky

52 Citing cases

  1. Fleet Bank, Nat. Ass'n v. Burke

    23 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D. Conn. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    It is an established rule of statutory construction that a statute which provides that a thing done in a certain way carries with it an implied prohibition against doing that thing in another way. See State ex rel. Barlow v. Kaminsky, 144 Conn. 612, 136 A.2d 792 (1957). Therefore, Section 36a-156, which provides a bank may charge another bank that uses its ATM a fee for its use, carries with it an implied prohibition against the bank imposing a fee on the customers of the other bank for such use.

  2. Burke v. Fleet National Bank

    252 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1999)   Cited 36 times

    It is an established rule of statutory construction that a statute which provides that a thing shall be done in a certain way carries with it an implied prohibition against doing that thing in another way. See, State ex rel. Barlow v. Kaminsky, 144 Conn. 612 [620, 136 A.2d 792] (1957). Therefore, [§] 36a-156, which provides that a bank may charge another bank that uses its ATM a fee for such use, carries with it an implied prohibition against the bank imposing a fee on the customers of the other bank for such use.

  3. Bateson v. Weddle

    2009 Ct. Sup. 19406 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009)

    "It is well established that in quo warranto proceedings the burden is upon the defendant to show a complete title to the office in dispute." Marsala v. Bridgeport, supra, 328; State ex rel. Gaski v. Basile, 174 Conn. 36, 38, 381 A.2d 547 (1977); see State ex rel. Barlow v. Kaminsky, 144 Conn. 612, 616, 136 A.2d 792 (1957); State ex rel. Wallen v. Hatch, 82 Conn. 122, 125, 72 A. 575 (1909); State ex rel. Reiley v. Chatfield, 71 Conn. 104, 40 A. 922 (1898); Cheshire v. McKenney, 182 Conn. 253, 256-57, 438 A.2d 88 (1980); see also Beccia v. Waterbury, supra, 456-57. IIIDiscussion

  4. Cook-Littman v. Bd. of Selectmen of the Town of Fairfield

    SC 20007 (Conn. May. 23, 2018)

    Holding a special election after the board has filled a vacancy in a timely manner would require us to rewrite the charter by adding language that its drafters may well have elected to omit. See, e.g., Mayer v. Historic District Commission, 325 Conn. 765, 776, 160 A.3d 333 (2017); see also State ex rel. Barlow v. Kaminsky, 144 Conn. 612, 620, 136 A.2d 792 (1957) ("A statute which provides that a thing shall be done in a certain way carries with it an implied prohibition against doing that thing in any other way. An enumeration of powers in a statute is uniformly held to forbid the things not enumerated.").

  5. Cook-Littman v. Bd. of Selectmen of the Town of Fairfield

    328 Conn. 758 (Conn. 2018)   Cited 6 times

    Holding a special election after the board has filled a vacancy in a timely manner would require us to rewrite the charter by adding language that its drafters may well have elected to omit. See, e.g., Mayer v. Historic District Commission , 325 Conn. 765, 776, 160 A.3d 333 (2017) ; see also State ex rel. Barlow v. Kaminsky , 144 Conn. 612, 620, 136 A.2d 792 (1957) ("A statute which provides that a thing shall be done in a certain way carries with it an implied prohibition against doing that thing in any other way. An enumeration of powers in a statute is uniformly held to forbid the things not enumerated.").

  6. DeMayo v. Quinn

    315 Conn. 37 (Conn. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    State ex rel. Gaski v. Basile, [174 Conn. 36, 39, 381 A.2d 547 (1977) ]. More specifically, [i]f the charter points out a particular way in which any act is to be done or in which an officer is to be elected, then, unless these forms are pursued in the doing of any act or in the electing of the officer, the act or the election is not lawful. State ex rel. Southey v. Lasher, 71 Conn. 540, 546, 42 A. 636 (1899); see also State ex rel. Barlow v. Kaminsky, 144 Conn. 612, 620, 136 A.2d 792 (1957) (A statute which provides that a thing shall be done in a certain way carries with it an implied prohibition against doing that thing in any other way. An enumeration of powers in a statute is uniformly held to forbid the things not enumerated.).” (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)

  7. Bateson v. Weddle

    306 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2012)   Cited 13 times
    Applying “ rules of English grammar to the sentence structure” to determine meaning

    ” State ex rel. Gaski v. Basile, supra, 174 Conn. at 39, 381 A.2d 547. More specifically, “[i]f the charter points out a particular way in which any act is to be done or in which an officer is to be elected, then, unless these forms are pursued in the doing of any act or in the electing of the officer, the act or the election is not lawful.” State ex rel. Southey v. Lasher, 71 Conn. 540, 546, 42 A. 636 (1899); see also State ex rel. Barlow v. Kaminsky, 144 Conn. 612, 620, 136 A.2d 792 (1957) (“A statute which provides that a thing shall be done in a certain way carries with it an implied prohibition against doing that thing in any other way. An enumeration of powers in a statute is uniformly held to forbid the things not enumerated.”). We begin with the language of the provisions of the town charter and regulations relating to the appointmentof the wetlands compliance officer.

  8. Commissioner, Enviro. Prot. v. Conn. Bldg. Wrecking

    227 Conn. 175 (Conn. 1993)   Cited 149 times
    Holding that Tull did not mandate a jury trial in a state environmental-enforcement action for injunctive relief and civil penalties where the civil-penalty statute contained multiple factors, including equitable restitution, and the legislature's statement of purpose emphasized "the importance of protecting and maintaining the natural resources of the state and of preserving the status quo," goals that were "equitable . . . in nature"

    " Likewise, 22a-438 provides that the court must consider various factors to determine the amount of the penalty. If the legislature had intended for the court to determine liability as well as the amount of the penalty, it would have specifically stated so. "An enumeration of powers in a statute is uniformly held to forbid the things not enumerated." State ex rel. Barlow v. Kaminsky, 144 Conn. 612, 620, 136 A.2d 792 (1957); Capalbo v. Planning Zoning Board of Appeals, 208 Conn. 480, 491, 547 A.2d 528 (1988). Finally, the majority justifies its conclusion that the defendants are not entitled to a jury trial on the ground that the state's primary goal was to obtain equitable relief (temporary and permanent injunctions) and not civil penalties.

  9. Iovieno v. Commissioner of Correction

    222 Conn. 254 (Conn. 1992)   Cited 30 times
    Noting preference for reconciling potentially conflicting statutory provisions

    " `A statute which provides that a thing shall be done in a certain way carries with it an implied prohibition against doing that thing in any other way.' State ex rel. Barlow v. Kaminsky, 144 Conn. 612, 620, 136 A.2d 792 (1957) . . . ." Chairman v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 200.

  10. Fonfara v. Reapportionment Commission

    222 Conn. 166 (Conn. 1992)   Cited 35 times

    Once a remedy is prescribed, it is implied that the remedy is exclusive. See Farricielli v. Personnel Appeal Board, 186 Conn. 198, 204, 440 A.2d 286 (1982), quoting State ex rel. Barlow v. Kaminsky, 144 Conn. 612, 620, 136 A.2d 792 (1957) ("`A statute which provides that a thing shall be done in a certain way carries with it an implied prohibition against doing that thing in any other way.'"). There were only twenty-one days between the date the petitioners filed this petition with the court on December 26, 1991, and the date oral argument was ordered for January 16, 1992.