Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission
This text of 787 A.2d 530 (Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Pamela Davis, the tax assessor of the city of Bridgeport, from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her appeal from an order of the named defendant, the freedom of information commission (commission).1 The commission had ordered the plaintiff to provide the complainant, Barbara Brennan, with access to the city’s motor vehicle grand lists for 1997 and 1998, and to comply strictly with the provisions of General Statutes § 1-210 (a),2 formerly §1-19 (a).
The plaintiff claims that the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act; 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq.;3 and General [49]*49Statutes §§ 14-10,414-50a and 14-163, bar the disclosure [50]*50of the motor vehicle grand lists in question. The plaintiff [51]*51also claims that the grand lists are exempt from the [52]*52public disclosure otherwise mandated by General Stat[54]*54utes § 12-55 (a)5 because “the phrase [in § 12-55 (a)] [55]*55‘except as otherwise specially provided by law’ would encompass the enactment of the Federal [Drivers Privacy Protection Act], as well as the subsequent revision to ... § 14-10 creating the Connecticut privacy exemption.”
Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The issues were resolved properly in the trial court’s concise and well reasoned memorandum of decision. Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 47 Conn. Sup. 309, 790 A.2d 1188 (2001). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses all arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the issues and the applicable law concerning those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for [56]*56us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Kaluszka v. East Hartford, 60 Conn. App. 749, 752, 760 A.2d 1269 (2000).
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
787 A.2d 530, 259 Conn. 45, 2002 Conn. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-freedom-of-information-commission-conn-2002.