Exeter Energy Ltd. Partnership v. Office of Policy & Management

Connecticut Appellate Court

Exeter Energy Ltd. Partnership v. Office of Policy & Management

609 A.2d 257, 27 Conn. App. 924, 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 238

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 16, 1992

Docket10700

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 609 A.2d 257 (Exeter Energy Ltd. Partnership v. Office of Policy & Management) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Exeter Energy Ltd. Partnership v. Office of Policy & Management, 609 A.2d 257, 27 Conn. App. 924, 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 238 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing this case pursuant to Practice Book § 251 for the failure of the plaintiffs counsel to appear at an administrative appeals scheduling calendar. On appeal, the plaintiff also challenges the trial court’s postjudgment denial of his motion to restore the case to the docket, which motion was filed within the appeal period.

We note that at the time of the dismissal the pleadings were not yet closed in this case. It was not a case “appearing on an assignment list for final adjudication,” and, therefore, it should not have been dismissed without a hearing on the matter, as required by Practice Book § 251. Since a review of the record indicates that no hearing was held prior to dismissal of the case, the trial court’s judgment of dismissal cannot stand.

The judgment of dismissal is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to restore the case to the docket.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing this case pursuant to Practice Book § 251 for the failure of the plaintiffs counsel to appear at an administrative appeals scheduling calendar. On appeal, the plaintiff also challenges the trial court’s postjudgment denial of his motion to restore the case to the docket, which motion was filed within the appeal period.

We note that at the time of the dismissal the pleadings were not yet closed in this case. It was not a case “appearing on an assignment list for final adjudication,” and, therefore, it should not have been dismissed without a hearing on the matter, as required by Practice Book § 251. Since a review of the record indicates that no hearing was held prior to dismissal of the case, the trial court’s judgment of dismissal cannot stand.

The judgment of dismissal is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to restore the case to the docket.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 A.2d 257, 27 Conn. App. 924, 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exeter-energy-ltd-partnership-v-office-of-policy-management-connappct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack