author: Borden, J.

text:
    Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Association, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission et al.
    (14720)
    Peters, C. J., Callahan, Borden, Norcott and Palmer, Js.
    Argued September 21—
    decision released November 16, 1993

      Craig A. Raabe, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Catherine Wassel-Nasto, commission counsel, for the appellee (named defendant), with whom, joining in the brief, was Joel M. Ellis, for the appellees (defendant Richard N. Bergen et al.).
   Borden, J.

The dispositive issue of this appeal is whether the filing in court of an administrative appeal beyond the forty-five day period provided in General Statutes § 4-183 (c) of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA) deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the administrative appeal. The plaintiff, the Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Association, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs appeal from a decision of the defendant freedom of information commission (commission). The commission had concluded that the plaintiff is a “public agency” within the meaning of General Statutes § 1-18a (a) and is therefore subject to the Freedom of Information Act, title 1, chapter 3 of the General Statutes (act).

The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly dismissed its appeal because the forty-five day time period provided in § 4-183 (c) applies only to the service of an appeal and does not apply to the filing of an administrative appeal. The plaintiff also claims that, even if the time period applies to the filing of an appeal, a failure to meet that time limitation is not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The facts are undisputed. In March, 1991, Richard Bergen and Susan Ellis filed a complaint with the commission, claiming that the plaintiff had violated certain provisions of the act. In response, the plaintiff asserted that it was not a “public agency” subject to the act. After a hearing, the commission concluded that the plaintiff was a public agency within the meaning of the act and ordered the plaintiff to comply with the act.

On November 20, 1991, the commission mailed its final decision to all parties. At the plaintiff’s direction, a deputy sheriff served copies of the plaintiff’s appeal from the commission’s final decision on all the parties on January 2, 1992, and on the same day the sheriff mailed the appeal, together with his return of service, to the clerk of the trial court. The clerk of the court received the appeal on January 9,1992, fifty days after the mailing of the commission’s decision.

The trial court, having examined the file, determined sua sponte that its subject matter jurisdiction was in question because the plaintiff had filed the appeal beyond the forty-five day deadline provided in § 4-183 (c). After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This appeal followed.

The plaintiff does not dispute that the UAPA governs its right to appeal from the decision of the commission. Nor does the plaintiff dispute that, prior to the amendments to the UAPA in 1988, the failure to file an appeal within the time period set by § 4-183 deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. Rogers v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 195 Conn. 543, 550, 489 A.2d 368 (1985). The plaintiff claims, however, that the amendments to § 4-183 enacted by the legislature in 1988; see Public Acts 1988, No. 88-317, § 23; eliminated the forty-five day period for filing an appeal and substituted therefor the general return of process provisions of General Statutes §§ 52-48 and 52-46a. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the forty-five day requirement applies only to the service of the appeal because, in the first sentence of § 4-183 (c), the legislature used the word “shall” before the word “serve” but not before the word “file.” We disagree.

Twice recently we have stated that § 4-183 (c), as revised in 1988, requires that an appeal be filed within the forty-five day period. “Section 4-183 (c), as revised by [Public Acts 1988, No. 88-317] changed the time period to forty-five days for both the filing of an administrative appeal and the service of the appeal upon all parties of record.” Raines v. Freedom of Information Commission, 221 Conn. 482, 487, 604 A.2d 819 (1992). “Section 4-183 (c) provides, in general terms, that an administrative appeal must, within forty-five days of delivery of the final decision to the person appealing, be filed with the court and served on the agency or the attorney general and on each party listed in the decision.” Tolly v. Department of Human Resources, 225 Conn. 13, 19, 621 A.2d 719 (1993). Although the precise issue presented in this case was not before us in those cases, upon plenary consideration of the issue now before us, we conclude that our previous dicta were correct.

The plain language of § 4-183 (c), read in the light of ordinary rules of English grammar and sentence structure, compels the conclusion that both the filing and the service of the appeal must be accomplished within the forty-five day period. The first sentence of the section begins with the adverbial phrase, “[w]ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision.” The subject of the sentence is “person.” Two verbs then follow: “serve” and “file.” “Serve” is preceded by “shall,” but “file” is not. The plainly evident intent, however, is that “shall” is to be read together with both “serve” and “file,” and that the adverbial phrase, “within forty-five days,” modifies both verbs. This conclusion becomes even clearer upon reading the second sentence, which begins with the adverbial phrase, “[w]ithin that time.” Thus, throughout the first two sentences there is an emphasis on completion of required acts within forty-five days.

The conclusion that § 4-183 (c) requires both the filing and the service of the appeal within the forty-five day period is buttressed by its legislative history. Section 4-183 (c) is the outgrowth of the fact that “[i]n 1988, the legislature enacted a comprehensive revision of the UAPA, based upon recommendations made after nearly three years of study and review by the Connecticut law revision commission.” Tolly v. Department of Human Resources, supra, 26. With only slight alteration, § 24 of the bill proposed by the law revision commission ultimately became General Statutes § 4-183 (c). Compare 1987 Thirteenth Annual Report of the Connecticut Law Revision Commission to the General Assembly, March, 1988, p. 63 (law revision commission report). The commentary to § 24 of the proposal makes clear not only that service must be made within forty-five days, but that “[t]he appeal must also be filed in the court within forty-five days.” Law revision commission report, p. 39. There is nothing in the committee hearings or floor debate on Public Acts 1988, No. 88-317 to suggest that the legislature intended to depart from this earlier and clearly expressed intent.

Indeed, the plaintiffs argument that the legislature intended to incorporate into § 4-183 (c) the return of process provisions of §§ 52-48 and 52-46a finds no support in either the language or the legislative history of § 4-183 (c). Moreover, the plaintiffs argument is contrary to the general intent of Public Acts 1988, No. 88-317, namely, “to simplify and make more fair the process of appealing an agency decision under the UAPA.” Tolly v. Department of Human Resources, supra, 29-30.

Having concluded that § 4-183 (c) requires the filing of an appeal within the forty-five day time period, we turn to the question of whether the 1988 legislative amendments to the UAPA reversed the prior law that a failure to meet that time limitation deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. See Rogers v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, supra. We conclude that the amendments did not change the existing law, so that a failure to meet the time limitation remains a subject matter jurisdictional defect.

In analyzing whether a statutory time limitation affects the right to appeal, we look to whether the legislature intended the time limitation to be jurisdictional. The legislative intent is to be discerned by reference to the language of the statute, its legislative history and surrounding circumstances, the policy the limitation was designed to implement, and the statute’s relationship to the existing legislation and common law principles governing the same subject matter. Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 226 Conn. 757, 764, 628 A.2d 1303 (1993). In light of the strong presumption in favor of jurisdiction, “we require a strong showing of a legislative intent to create a time limitation that, in the event of noncompliance, acts as a subject matter jurisdictional bar.” Id., 765.

We conclude that such a showing has been made in this case. The legislature intended the forty-five day time limitation for filing of an appeal under the UAPA to remain a prerequisite to subject matter jurisdiction. Our conclusion is supported by the language of the statute, particularly in light of its jurisprudential background and legislative history.

Prior to the 1988 amendments, which took effect July 1,1989, General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 4-183 (b) provided: “Proceedings for such appeal shall be instituted by filing a petition . . . within forty-five days after mailing of the notice of the final decision of the agency . . . .” That language had been held to limit subject matter jurisdiction. Rogers v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, supra. Although the 1988 amendments that resulted in § 4-183 (c); see footnote 2; changed the terminology from “petition” to “appeal,” and rearranged the sentence structure for purposes of clarity, those linguistic differences are too slight to convince us that the legislature intended to change the law regarding the consequence of a failure to meet the statutory deadline.

Our conclusion is reinforced by the second sentence of § 4-183 (c), which provides that a failure to make timely service “on parties other than the agency . . . shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the appeal,” together with the provision in § 4-183 (d) that “[i]f the failure to make service causes prejudice . . . to the agency, the court, after hearing, may dismiss the appeal.” We resolved the apparent conflict between these two provisions by reading the language of § 4-183 (c) “as imposing a time limitation with respect to subject matter jurisdiction. If there is no service at all on the agency within the forty-five day period, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal by virtue of the clear implication of the language in § 4-183 (c), read against the background of the preexisting law.” Tolly v. Department of Human Resources, supra, 28. If there is merely an arguable defect in the process timely served on the agency, however, “the court does not lack subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Under those circumstances, § 4-183 (d) applies, and the appeal is dismissable only upon a finding of prejudice to the agency.” Id., 28-29.

The point of this analysis is that the legislature, in amending the UAPA in 1988, certainly was aware of the need to amend the prior law regarding subject matter jurisdiction, and enacted amendments applicable to appeals that were either untimely served on parties other than the agency or timely served on the agency but pursuant to defective process. Id., 27-29. The legislature’s failure to include in this amendment, or in the debate leading to its enactment, any reference to an untimely filed appeal compels the inference that it intended to leave in place the prior law in that regard.

This inference is strengthened by the fact that the proposal emanating from the law revision commission that became Public Acts 1988, No. 88-317 was “the result of numerous meetings between administrative law experts, including representatives of the state agencies, the Attorney General’s Office, and legal practitioners.” Law revision commission report, p. 5. Given the makeup of the advisory drafting committee of the commission, we must presume that, when the commission reported to the legislature that “[t]he appeal must also be filed in the court within forty-five days”; law revision commission report, p. 39; the commission was aware of the jurisdictional implications of that requirement.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).

       General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides: “Within forty-five days after mailing of the final decision under section 4-180 or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under said section, a person appealing as provided in this section shall serve a copy of the appeal on the agency that rendered the final decision at its office or at the office of the attorney general in Hartford and file the appeal with the clerk of the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain or for the judicial district wherein the person appealing resides or, if that person is not a resident of this state, with the clerk of the court for the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain. Within that time, the person appealing shall also serve a copy of the appeal on each party listed in the final decision at the address shown in the decision, provided failure to make such service within forty-five days on parties other than the agency that rendered the final decision shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Service of the appeal shall be made by (1) United States mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, without the use of a sheriff or other officer, or (2) personal service by a proper officer or indifferent person making service in the same manner as complaints are served in ordinary civil actions.”

       Also named as defendants were Richard N. Bergen and Susan G. Ellis, who are inactive members of the plaintiff association. They joined in the brief of the defendant commission.

       General Statutes § 1-18a provides in pertinent part: “definitions. As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings, except where such terms are used in a context which clearly indicates the contrary:
      “(a) ‘Public agency’ or ‘agency’ means any executive, administrative or legislative office of the state or any political subdivision of the state and any state or town agency, any department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official of the state or of any city, town, borough, municipal corporation, school district, regional district or other district or other political subdivision of the state, including any committee of any such office, subdivision, agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official, and also includes any judicial office, official or body or committee thereof but only in respect to its or their administrative functions.”

       Although the plaintiff did not explicitly make this claim either in the trial court or in its brief to this court, it did so at oral argument in this court. Despite this procedural lacuna, however, it is necessary to reach the issue, because a question relating to subject matter jurisdiction must always be addressed whenever it comes to the attention of the court.

       General Statutes § l-21i (d) provides in pertinent part: “Any party aggrieved by the decision of said [freedom of information] commission may appeal therefrom, in accordance with the provisions of section 4-183.”

       General Statutes $ 52-48 provides: “return DAY OF process, (a) Process in civil actions, including transfers and applications for relief or removal, but not including summary process actions, brought to the superior court may be made returnable on any Tuesday in any month. The return day in any summary process action may be any week day, Monday through Saturday, except a holiday.
      “(b) All process shall be made returnable not later than two months after the date of the process and shall designate the place where court is to be held.”

       General Statutes § 52-46a provides: “return of process. Process in civil actions returnable to the supreme court shall be returned to its clerk at least twenty days before the return day and, if returnable to the superior court, except process in summary process actions, to the clerk of such court at least six days before the return day.”

       General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 4-183 (b) provided: “Proceedings for such appeal shall be instituted by filing a petition in superior court for the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain or for the judicial district wherein the aggrieved person resides or if such person is not a resident of this state to the court for the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain within forty-five days after mailing of the notice of the final decision of the agency or, if a rehearing is requested, within forty-five days after mailing of the notice of the decision thereon. Copies of the petition shall be served upon the agency and all parties of record within thirty days after mailing of such notice or, if a rehearing is requested, within thirty days after mailing of the notice of the decision thereon, except that service upon an agency may be made by the appellant mailing a copy of the petition by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, without the use of a sheriff or other officer, to the office of the commissioner of the agency or to the office of the attorney general in Hartford.”

       General Statutes § 4-183 (d) provides: “The person appealing, not later than fifteen days after filing the appeal, shall file or cause to be filed with the clerk of the court an affidavit, or the sheriffs return, stating the date and manner in which a copy of the appeal was served on each party and on the agency that rendered the final decision, and, if service was not made on a party, the reason for failure to make service. If the failure to make service causes prejudice to any party to the appeal or to the agency, the court, after hearing, may dismiss the appeal.”


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    State of Connecticut v. Warren Patterson
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14807.
    Decided July 15, 1993

      James M. Ralls, assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

      David M. Cohen, in opposition.
   The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 278 (AC 10752, AC 10855), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Under applicable constitutional, common law or Practice Book rules, must a trial judge be physically present at voir dire in a criminal trial?

“2. If the judge’s physical presence is required, may the defendant waive the judge’s presence, and did he do so in the circumstances of this case?

“3. If the judge’s physical presence is required, may the judge’s absence be harmless error, and, if so, was it harmless error in the circumstances of this case?”


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Freddy Payne
    Decided July 15, 1993

      Neal Cone, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

      Jack W. Fischer, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 370 (AC 10997), is denied.


text:
    General Building Supply Company, Inc. v. Astrid A. Sundwall
    Decided July 15, 1993

      Astrid A. Sundwall, pro se, in support of the petition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 12227) is denied.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Aaron Littles
    Decided July 15, 1993

      Lisa R. Stevens, deputy assistant public defender, in support of the petition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 47 (AC 10407), is denied.


text:
    Claire F. Collins v. John Wetherbee
    Decided July 15, 1993

      Robert L. Hirtle, Jr., in support of the petition.

      Matthew J. Collins, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 518 (AC 11411), is denied.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Ricky Ellis
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 923 (AC 10760), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Was the Appellate Court correct in concluding the defendant’s rights were not violated by an instruction defining reasonable doubt as ‘a doubt for which no valid reason can be assigned . . . such a doubt as in serious affairs which concern you in everyday life you would pay some strict attention to’ and by an instructional caveat limiting the presumption of innocence to protecting] the innocent and not the guilty?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14808.

Decided July 30, 1993

Elizabeth M. Inkster, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

Judith Rossi, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

“2. Was the May 17, 1991 panel of venirepersons summoned in a manner that violated the defendant’s constitutional right to a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community?

“It is further ordered that the matter be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing and written findings on the following factual issues: On May 15,1991, were additional venirepersons selected in the case of State v. Webb, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. CR 89 371150 (September 12, 1991), on a nonrandom, racial basis in order to make more minority venirepersons available in that case; and if so, did that process result in fewer minority venirepersons available for the May 17,1991 panel of venirepersons in this case? See State v. Ellis, 224 Conn. 711 (1993).”


text:
    Town of Groton v. Peter R. Johl
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Peter R. Johl, pro se, in support of the petitions.
   The defendant’s petitions for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 12383, AC 12384) are denied.


author: Berdon, J.,

text:
    Bernard C. Fisher v. Jean C. Fisher
    Decided August 31, 1993

      Paul B. Zolan, in support of the petition.

      C. Ian McLachlan, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 324 (AC 11188), is denied.

Berdon, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the plaintiff’s petition for certification.


text:
    Anne Grabowy et al. v. Allan C. Brown
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14833.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Jack G. Steigelfest, in support of the petition.

      The defendant’s appeal was withdrawn January 1, 1994.

   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 12285) is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss the defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s order denying his motion to implead?”


text:
    Vincent T. McManus, Jr., et al. v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 105 (AC 11343), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Does General Statutes § 22a-44 (a) prohibit the commissioner of environmental protection from issuing an administrative order to abate a violation of the wetland laws once the commissioner has initiated an action for injunctive relief, even if the civil action for injunctive relief has been withdrawn without prejudice?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14836.

Decided September 15, 1993

Patricia A. Horgan, assistant attorney general, in support of the petition.


text:
    Mary-Anne Mulholland v. James C. Mulholland
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14821.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      James C. Mulholland, pro se, in support of the petition.

      Mary-Anne Mulholland, pro se, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 214 (AC 11225), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“May the trial court render a judgment of civil contempt for failure to comply with an order of the court after an appellate court has revised the underlying order?”


text:
    Elizabeth M. Hall v. Peter V. Brazzale
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Ralph G. Elliot, in support of the petition.

      David B. Losee and Holly Jean Bray, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 342 (AC 11375), is denied.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Justiniano Torres
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14838.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Gregory T. D’Auria, special public defender, in support of the petition.

      Mitchell S. Brody, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 443 (AC 10922), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“ 1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that an inadequate record barred review of the defendant’s unpreserved claim that a sniff by a police dog of the exterior of the defendant’s stopped car was a search that was in violation of the state and federal constitutions because it was not supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion?

“2. If the answer to question 1. is no, was the dog sniff a search under either the federal or state constitution that was not supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion?”


text:
    George S. Harkins, Trustee v. Girouard Estates, Inc., et al.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Heather M. Brown, in support of the petition.

      Alexander H. Schwartz, in opposition.
   The petition of the defendants Darien Asphalt Paving, Inc., and Darien Asphalt Paving, Inc., doing business as F.G.B. Paving and Excavating Company for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 485 (AC 11260), is denied.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Stephen P. Battista
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Otto P. Witt, in support of the petition.

      Jack W. Fischer, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 497 (AC 10999), is denied.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. John Conley
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Stephen F. Cashman, in support of the petition.

      Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 548 (AC 11259), is denied.


text:
    Ann Petro v. Michael Petro
    Decided September 15, 1993

      William H. Cashman, in support of the petition.

      Lawrence P. Weisman, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 582 (AC 11656), is denied.


text:
    City of Stamford v. Zdravko Kovac
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Sigmund L. Miller, in support of the petition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 599 (AC 11526), is denied.


text:
    City of Stamford v. Zdravko Kovac
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14832.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      James V. Minor, assistant corporation counsel, in support of the petition.

      Sigmund L. Miller, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 599 (AC 11526), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Under the circumstances of this case, did the proceeding on the motion to reargue cure the trial court’s failure to provide oral argument on the defendant’s objection to the acceptance of the attorney trial referee’s report?”


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Anthony Lee Clemons
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Frederick W. Fawcett, assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

      Theresa M. Dalton, assistant public defender, in opposition.
   The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 614 (AC 10451), is denied.


text:
    Cynthia D’Avanzo v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Kevin A. Coles, in support of the petition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 621 (AC 11493), is denied.


text:
    Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Cynthia D’Avanzo
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Kevin A. Coles, in support of the petition.

      Deborah L. Dorio, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 621 (AC 11960), is denied.


text:
    Board of Education of the Town of Wallingford v. Local 1282, District 1, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO

      The plaintiffs appeal was withdrawn January 3, 1994.

   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 629 (AC 11160), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the provisions for service of process set forth in General Statutes § 52-57 (e) are mandatory rather than permissive?

“2. Should the Appellate Court have considered the defendant’s argument, raised for the first time in its reply brief, that service of process was not required to confer jurisdiction on the trial court to hear the plaintiff’s application to vacate?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14835.

Decided September 15, 1993

Lawrence J. Campane, in support of the petition.

Anne Goldstein, in opposition.


text:
    Barbara Thoma et al. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Canterbury
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14830.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Angela Hawkins Fichter, in support of the petition.

      Edward E. Moukawsher, in opposition.
   The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 643 (AC 11524), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that: (a) Canterbury Zoning Regulation § 4.12.3 requires, as a condition precedent to subdivision approval, inland wetlands approval; and (b) the zoning regulation conflicts with General Statutes § 8-26?”


text:
    State of Connecticut v. John Yurch
   The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 688 (AC 11282), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the judgment of the trial court by holding that this court’s decision in State v. Tatem, 194 Conn. 594, establishes that the trial court’s use of the word ‘unreasonable’ in place of ‘unfavorable’ in instructing the jury under General Statutes § 54-84 (b) automatically requires reversal and a new trial?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14831.

Decided September 15, 1993

Stephen R. Park, assistant attorney general-special assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

“2. If the answer to question 1. is no, was the trial court’s misstatement of the word ‘unreasonable’ in charging the jury under General Statutes § 54-84 (b), when viewed in the context of the jury charge as a whole and the evidence in the case, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?”


text:
    Ronald E. Theriault v. Board of Education of the Town of Bloomfield
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Stephen P. Fogarty and Gary S. Starr, in support of the petition.

      Leon M. Rosenblatt, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 690 (AC 11385), is denied.


text:
    John J. McCook v. Ursula M. Coutu
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Raymond L. Baribeault, Jr., in support of the petition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 696 (AC 11273), is denied.


text:
    Vito A. Rossi, Coadministrator (Estate of Gaetano T. Rossi), et al. v. William H. Stanback et al.
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14827.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Andrew J. O’Keefe, in support of the petition.

      John Rose, Jr., in opposition.
   The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 703 (AC 11297), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to provide the jury with separate plaintiffs’ verdict forms for each count of the complaint?”


text:
    National Elevator Industry Pension, Welfare and Educational Fund v. Peter Scrivani
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14825.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Stuart D. Rosen and Ann M. Siczewicz, in support of the petition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 728 (AC 11500), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Having concluded that the attorney trial referee had not complied with the Practice Book by failing to find the facts, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the case should be remanded to the same attorney trial referee for a finding of facts?”


text:
    Eugene Mercer v. Commissioner of Correction
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14820.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Temmy Ann Pieszak, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

      Jacqueline J. Footman, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The petitioner Eugene Mercer’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 771 (AC 11486), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Was the petitioner entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel?”


text:
    Robert F. Caulfield et al. v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company et al.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Kevin P. Thornton, in support of the petition.

      Constance L. Epstein and Scott B. Clendaniel, in opposition.
   The named plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 781 (AC 11545), is denied.


text:
    Concept Associates, Ltd. v. Board of Tax Review of the Town of Guilford et al.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 793 (AC 11736), is granted, limited to the following issue:

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14819.

Decided September 15, 1993

John K. Atticks III, in support of the petition.

Judith A. Ravel, in opposition.

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s motion to amend the return date, having been filed after the original return date, could not be granted pursuant to General Statutes § 52-72?”


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Arthur Jacobson
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14837.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Susann E. Gill, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

      Jon Schoenhorn, in opposition.
   The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 797 (AC 11523), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Is a defendant subject to prosecution for drunk driving while under suspension under General Statutes § 14-215 (c) at a time when his suspended license could have been restored to him?”


text:
    Michael Lutynski v. B. B. and J. Trucking, Inc.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 806 (AC 11300), is granted, limited to the following issue:

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14822.

Decided September 15, 1993

James E. Kernan, in support of the petition.

James A. Mulhall, Jr., in opposition.

“Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court was required by General Statutes § 52-192a, the offer of judgment statute, to award prejudgment interest?”


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Roosevelt Andrew
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Linda P. Stambovsky, special public defender, in support of the petition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 910 (AC 11003), is denied.


text:
    Robert Durrschmidt v. Peter Loux et al.
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14826.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Anne Kelly Zovas, in support of the petition.
   The petition of the plaintiff Field View Farm Transportation, Inc., for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 917 (AC 11708), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Does the notice to the employer pursuant to General Statutes § 31-293 require notice of an employment relationship between the person giving notice and its recipient?”


text:
    Katherine G. Ivimey et al. v. American Bank of Connecticut
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Katherine G. Ivimey, pro se, and John R. Ivimey, Sr., pro se, in support of the petition.

      Scott Garver, in opposition.
   The petition of the plaintiffs Katherine G. Ivimey and John R. Ivimey, Sr., for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 921 (AC 11074), is denied.


text:
    Stephen N. Sorak v. Muslim M. Mustafa
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Matthew D. Gilmond and Thomas P. Cella, in support of the petition.

      Michael T. Dolan, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 924 (AC 11395), is denied.


text:
    Michael A. Robinson v. Southern New England Telephone Company
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Michael A. Robinson, pro se, in support of the petition.

      Diana Garfield, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 925 (AC 11638), is granted. It is further ordered that the matter be remanded to the Appellate Court for proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s decision in Genovese v. Gallo Wine Merchants, Inc., 226 Conn. 475 (1993).


text:
    Susan L. Mende v. Frank L. Collins, Jr.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Jeremiah J. Morytko, in support of the petition.

      Joseph A. Broder, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 928 (AC 10557), is denied.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Reginald Watkins
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Joseph G. Bruckman, public defender, in support of the petition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 928 (AC 11145), is denied.

Berdon, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the defendant’s petition for certification.


text:
    Prudential Home Mortgage Company, Inc. v. Hans G. Reichardt et al.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Hans G. Reichardt, pro se, and Doreen L. Reichardt, pro se, in support of the petition.
   The petition of the defendants Hans G. Reichardt and Doreen L. Reichardt for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 930 (AC 11982), is denied.


text:
    Allan Cleveland v. Suburban Subaru, Inc.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Bruce D. Tyler, in support of the petition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 931 (AC 11887), is denied.


text:
    Virgil B. Baldi et al. v. Harry Novick et al.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Harry Novick, pro se, in support of the petition.

      Eric M. Higgins, in opposition.
   The defendant Harry Novick’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 933 (AC 12026), is denied.


text:
    First Constitution Bank v. Thomas J. Pulito et al.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Stephen R. Bellis, in support of the petition.

      Andrew D. Cretella, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 940 (AC 11557), is denied.


text:
    In re Barry G.
   The petitioner Barry G.’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 941 (AC 11667), is denied.

Decided September 15, 1993

Susan F. Filan, special public defender, in support of the petition.

Cathleen Mulligan-Edwards, state’s advocate, in opposition.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Dennis Luzietti
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14828.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Barry N. Silver, in support of the petition.

      Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 1 (AC 11466), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Does the trial court have jurisdiction to reconsider the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal after the defendant had begun serving his sentence?”


text:
    Diana Chute v. Mobile Shipping and Transportation Company et al.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Jeffrey D. Ginzberg, in support of the petition.

      Augustus R. Southworth III, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 16 (AC 11725), is denied.


text:
    Lawrence J. Pelletier, Jr. v. Warden
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Lori Welch-Rubin, special public defender, in support of the petition.
   The petition of the petitioner Lawrence J. Pelletier, Jr., for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 38 (AC 11479), is denied.


text:
    Robert E. Hull v. Warden, State Prison
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Paula Mangini Montonye, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

      Jacqueline J. Footman, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The petitioner Robert E. Hull’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 170 (AC 11462), is denied.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Isidro Rivera
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Auden Grogins, special public defender, in support of the petition.

      Richard F. Jacobson, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 193 (AC 10974), is denied.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. John Dinoto
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14823.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Lawrence J. Tytla, assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

      Bruce A. Sturman, public defender, in opposition.
   The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 217 (AC 10665), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Under the facts of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court’s jury instruction regarding sexual assault in the first degree was incorrect because it referred to compelled sexual intercourse by threat of force?

“2. If the answer to question 1. is yes, was reversal of the conviction required by (a) the federal due process clause; or (b) the due process clause of article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution?

“3. Was the Appellate Court correct in failing to consider whether any error in the trial court’s instruction was harmless?”


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Larry A. Radicioni State of Connecticut v. Linda J. Hurst
   The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 267 (AC 11776, AC 11777), is granted. It is further ordered that the matter be remanded to the Appellate Court for reconsideration in light of this court’s decision in State v. Diaz, 226 Conn. 514 (1993).

Decided September 15, 1993

Michael L. Regan, assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

Joseph L. Segal, in opposition.


text:
    Renay Vickers v. Kim Jessup
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14834.
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Mark A. Newcity, in support of the petition.

      Daniel R. Cunningham, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 360 (AC 11613), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. In a civil case, must a statement of a party opponent be inconsistent with the party’s position at trial in order to be admissible?

“2. If the answer to question 1. is no, was the ruling of the trial court excluding the plaintiff’s November, 1989 letter harmful error?”


text:
    Paul Trotta v. Board of Education of the Town of Plymouth
    Decided September 15, 1993

      Ronald Cordilico, in support of the petition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 395 (AC 11643), is denied.


text:
    First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Rochester v. Gail Connelly Pellechia et al.
    Decided September 24, 1993

      Mary C. Duffy, Stuart D. Rosen and Ann M. Siczewicz, in support of the petition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 260 (AC 11285), is denied.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Michael Kowal
    Decided September 24, 1993

      Richard A. Volo, in support of the petition.

      James M. Ralls, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 669 (AC 11815), is denied.


text:
    Guy Owens v. New Britain General Hospital
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14840.
    Decided September 24, 1993

      Barbara L. Cox, in support of the petition.

      Theodore J. Tucci, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 56 (AC 10654), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“Whether the Appellate Court correctly held that the defendant hospital need only substantially comply with its bylaws when terminating a physician’s medical staff privileges and whether the failure to renew the plaintiff’s medical staff privileges constituted a breach of those medical staff bylaws?”


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Dexter Lee
    Decided September 24, 1993

      Christine Perra, special public defender, in support of the petition.

      Marjorie Allen Dauster, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 84 (AC 10836), is denied.


text:
    Arthur J. Davis v. Warden, State Prison
    Decided September 24, 1993

      William M. Bloss, in support of the petition.

      Susann E. Gill, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The petitioner Arthur J. Davis’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 296 (AC 11789), is denied.


text:
    The Ridgebury Group v. Joseph Mitchell
    Decided October 5, 1993

      Joseph Mitchell, pro se, in support of the petition.

      Christopher G. Winans, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 938 (AC 11742), is denied.


text:
    George M. Capozzi v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14844.
    Decided October 5, 1993

      William I. Garfinkel, in support of the petition.

      James E. Kernan, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 250 (AC 11477), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Whether the Appellate Court correctly held that there was substantial evidence to support the arbitrators’ conclusion that when the plaintiff was injured he was not operating a ‘replacement vehicle’ and that he was therefore not covered by the uninsured motorist provisions of the two insurance policies issued by the defendant?”


text:
    City of Bridgeport v. Connecticut Police Department Employees Local 1159, AFSCME, Council 15
    Decided October 5, 1993

      Robert G. Zanesky, assistant city attorney, in support of the petition.

      Joseph M. Lander, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 289 (AC 11136), is denied.


text:
    Maria Gajewski et al. v. Arthur Pavelo et al.
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14843.
    Decided October 5, 1993

      Rosalind J. Koskoff, in support of the petition.

      James E. Coyne, in opposition.
   The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 373 (AC 11404), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Where the jury by the words used in its verdict indicated that it had found the plaintiffs failed to prove their case, was the Appellate Court correct in finding that the jury could have reached its conclusion based on the allegations contained in a special defense?

“2. Was the Appellate Court correct in finding that the special defense of contributory negligence justified the application of the general verdict rule when no evidence was presented at the trial in support of the defense?

“3. Was the Appellate Court correct in applying the general verdict rule where the plaintiffs claim error in the charge on the defendants’ liability, the verdict is upheld on the basis of contributory negligence, and the jury, in considering contributory negligence, is required by law to compare the plaintiffs’ liability to the defendants’ liability?”


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Gilberto Colon State of Connecticut v. Carmen Perez
   The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 402 (AC 11454, AC 11693), is granted, limited to the following issues:

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14847.

Decided October 5, 1993

John A. East III, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

Kent Drager, assistant public defender, in opposition.

“1. Under the circumstances of this case, did the failure of the issuing judge to sign the jurat on the affidavit invalidate the search warrant?

“2. If the answer to question 1. is yes, should the remedy have been exclusion of the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant?”


text:
    Fred Roraback v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of East Haddam et al.
    Decided October 5, 1993

      Frederick W. Odell, in support of the petition.

      W. Wilson Keithline, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 409 (AC 11914), is denied.


text:
    Edward Falby v. Commissioner of Correction
    Decided October 5, 1993

      Karen Goodrow, in support of the petition.

      Richard F. Jacobson, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The petitioner Edward Falby’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 438 (AC 11647), is denied.

Berdon, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the petitioner Edward Falby’s petition for certification.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Shawn Robinson
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14846.
    Decided October 5, 1993

      Rita M. Shair, assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

      Susan M. Hankins, assistant public defender, in opposition.
   The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 448 (AC 10960), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that a new trial was required on the basis of a violation of a sequestration order?

“2. Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court had improperly failed to exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for an examination pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-566?”


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Lawrence Harris
    Decided October 5, 1993

      John S. Aissis, special public defender, in support of the petition.

      Margaret Gaffney Radionovas, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 476 (AC 11109), is denied.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Melvin Brokaw
    Decided October 5, 1993

      John R. Donovan, in support of the petition.

      John A. East III, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 505 (AC 11114), is denied.


text:
    Whisper Wind Development Corporation v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Middlefield et al.
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14849.
    Decided October 5, 1993

      Lori Welch-Rubin, in support of the petition.

      Thomas P. Byrne, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 515 (AC 11497), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Was the Appellate Court correct in concluding that the trial court properly determined that the plaintiff’s failure to meet the general health, safety and welfare requirements set forth in the town’s zoning regulations provided an adequate basis for the defendant’s denial of a special permit application, even though the plaintiff’s application complied with all of the technical requirements of the regulations applicable to special permits?”


text:
    State of Connecticut v. James DesLaurier
    The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14845.
    Decided October 5, 1993

      Paul D. Eschuk, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

      Jack W. Fischer, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 553 (AC 10352), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Was the Appellate Court correct in concluding that the statement made by the defendant to police officers Tony Dostank and John Módica was admissible into evidence?

“2. Was the Appellate Court correct in deciding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a competency exam under General Statutes § 54-56d?”


text:
    Maureen C. Tovish et al. v. Gerber Electronics et al.
   The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 595 (AC 11484), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Was the Appellate Court correct in deciding that scope of employment under General Statutes § 31-275 includes a domestic preparatory activity where the commissioner had concluded that the sole reason the decedent was shoveling snow in his driveway was to enable him to exit his driveway to visit customers?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14848.

Decided October 5, 1993

Scott Wilson Williams, in support of the petition.

Robert R. Sheldon, in opposition.


text:
    Alfred Corsino v. Anthony Telesca et al.
    Decided October 5, 1993

      Mark V. Oppenheimer, in support of the petition.

      James P. Brennan, in opposition.
   The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 627 (AC 11657), is denied.


text:
    Savoy Laundry, Inc. v. Town of Stratford et al.
    Decided October 5, 1993

      Laurence V. Parnoff, in support of the petition.

      Alan Neigher and Judith M. Trutt, in opposition.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 636 (AC 11750), is denied.


text:
    Keary Mulligan v. Allen S. Hall et al.
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 203 (AC 11150), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss this appeal from a stipulated judgment in a personal injury action involving a workers’ compensation claim, when the parties had reserved, in stipulating to the judgment, the right to appeal and to challenge the trial court’s earlier granting of the employer’s motion to intervene?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14852.

Decided October 15, 1993

Kerry M. Wisser, in support of the petition.

Thomas H. Cotter, in opposition.


text:
    State of Connecticut v. Clayton Harrison
    Decided October 15, 1993

      Michael K. Courtney, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

      Rita M. Shair, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
   The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 687 (AC 11508), is denied.


text:
    Philip H. Schnabel v. Clyde R. Tyler
   The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 704 (AC 10937), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court had been correct in ruling that the qualified immunity defense under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was not available to the plaintiff?

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court had correctly excluded the evidence offered by the plaintiff on the issue of the plaintiffs qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14853.

Decided October 15, 1993

Elliot B. Spector, in support of the petition.

Kathleen Eldergill, in opposition.


text:
    Linda McCullough v. Waterfront Park Association, Inc., et al.
    Decided October 15, 1993

      Barry D. Guliano, in support of the petition.

      Raymond T. DeMeo, in opposition.
   The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 746 (AC 11420), is denied.