We the People of Connecticut, Inc. v. Malloy

6 Citing cases

  1. White v. Stearns

    HHDCV185054433S (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 1, 2019)

    "A motion to dismiss properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court ... and mootness implicates a court’s subject matter jurisdiction." We the People of Connecticut, Inc. v. Malloy, 150 Conn.App. 576, 581-82 n.3, 92 A.3d 961, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 919, 100 A.3d 850 (2014). "[A] court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction ... The subject matter jurisdiction requirement may not be waived by any party, and also may be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings ..." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

  2. Drummer v. State

    No. CV185010661S (Conn. Super. Ct. Jul. 12, 2019)

    (Citation omitted.) We the People of Connecticut, Inc. v. Malloy, 150 Conn.App. 576, 581-82 n.3, 92 A.3d 961, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 919, 100 A.3d 850 (2014). "Mootness is a question of justiciability that must be determined as a threshold matter because it implicates [the] court’s subject matter jurisdiction ..." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

  3. Miller v. Town of Hamden

    CV186079834S (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 19, 2018)

    (Citation omitted.) We the People of Connecticut, Inc. v. Malloy, 150 Conn.App. 576, 581-82 n.3, 92 A.3d 961, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 919, 100 A.3d 850 (2014). In their motion and supporting memorandum, the defendants argue that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims because the plaintiff does not have standing to bring them and because they are moot, which the plaintiff disputes.

  4. Golicz v. Rooney

    CV136041656S (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 19, 2018)

    (Citation omitted.) We the People of Connecticut, Inc. v. Malloy, 150 Conn.App. 576, 581-82 n.3, 92 A.3d 961, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 919, 100 A.3d 850 (2014). " Mootness is a threshold issue that implicates subject matter jurisdiction; which imposes a duty on the court to dismiss a case if the court can no longer grant practical relief to the parties ... Mootness presents a circumstance wherein the issue before the court has been resolved or had lost its significance because of a change in the condition of affairs between the parties ... [The existence of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction; it is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow."

  5. Kaminski v. Milling

    HHBCV145016058S (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 23, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    (Citation omitted.) We the People of Connecticut, Inc. v. Malloy, 150 Conn.App. 576, 581-82 n.3, 92 A.3d 961, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 919, 100 A.3d 850 (2014). Furthermore, " [c]laims involving the doctrines of common-law sovereign immunity and statutory immunity, pursuant to [General Statutes] § 4-165, implicate the court's subject matter jurisdiction."

  6. Alvarez v. Bloomfield Board of Education

    HHDCV146054235 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 10, 2015)

    (Citation omitted.) We the People of Connecticut, Inc. v. Malloy, 150 Conn.App. 576, 581-82 n.3, 92 A.3d 961, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 919, 100 A.3d 850 (2014). " Mootness is a threshold issue that implicates subject matter jurisdiction, which imposes a duty on the court to dismiss a case if the court can no longer grant practical relief to the parties."