State v. Tudisca

3 Citing cases

  1. Gayle v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles

    HHBCV165017598S (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 21, 2016)

    Our courts have concluded that proof that a person received actual notice of a license suspension decision is not required. See State v. Swain, supra, 245 Conn. 453-54 (holding that proof of actual notice of suspension was not required to convict a defendant of operating a motor vehicle while under suspension); State v. Tudisca, 62 Conn.App. 796, 799-801, 772 A.2d 698 (2001). The courts have reasoned that a person who has been arrested for operating while under the influence of drugs or alcohol should bear the burden of determining his or her license status and is bound to make reasonable inquiry.

  2. American Federation v. Dept. of Corr.

    2001 Ct. Sup. 13510 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)

    This is a result that is more "rational and effective" in accomplishing the legislative objective than the interpretation suggested by the plaintiff. State v. Burns, 236 Conn. 18, 23 (1996); State v. Tudisca, 62 Conn. App. 796, 800 (2001). The oversight of public employee arbitration awards, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, is a legislative function.

  3. Jacobowitz v. State Dept. of Publ. Health

    2001 Ct. Sup. 12352 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)

    Where a statute or regulation is capable of two constructions, the court should select the one that is "rational and effective" in accomplishing the legislative objective, not the one which is the more difficult or would frustrate the legislative purpose. State v. Burns, 236 Conn. 18, 23 (1996); State v. Tudisca, 62 Conn. App. 796, 800 (2001). The plaintiffs' next claim relates to the orders issued by the department requiring the plaintiffs to test their wells between October and December, 1999. The plaintiffs contend that these orders were improperly issued because there was no evidence in the record as of the October to December period on the population being served by the water company.