City of Shelton v. Carothers

556 A.2d 1060, 18 Conn. App. 132, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 97
Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided March 22, 1989·No. 7296·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs are appealing the decision of the trial court dismissing their administrative appeal because it was untimely served. We agree with the trial court.

[133] The plaintiffs failed to serve notice of their appeal within thirty days of the named defendant’s decision as required by General Statutes § 4-183 (b). Such failure to conform to the statute is fatal to the appeal. See, e.g., Simko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 413, 419, 533 A.2d 879 (1987), aff’d on rehearing, 206 Conn. 374, 538 A.2d 202 (1988); Basilicato v. Department of Public Utility Control, 197 Conn. 320, 324, 497 A.2d 48 (1985); Rogers v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 195 Conn. 543, 550, 489 A.2d 368 (1985); Hanson v. Department of Income Maintenance, 10 Conn. App. 14, 17-18, 521 A.2d 208 (1987).

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of Shelton v. Carothers, 556 A.2d 1060, 18 Conn. App. 132, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 97 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

556 A.2d 1060 (City of Shelton v. Carothers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burgos v. Commission on Human Rights, No. Cv93 0301642s (Oct. 1, 1993)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8216-U (Connecticut Superior Court, 1993)