Metro Mobile CTS of Fairfield County, Inc. v. Deparment of Public Utility Control

702 A.2d 1179, 243 Conn. 235, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 436
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedNovember 4, 1997
DocketSC 15609
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 702 A.2d 1179 (Metro Mobile CTS of Fairfield County, Inc. v. Deparment of Public Utility Control) 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.

Bluebook
Metro Mobile CTS of Fairfield County, Inc. v. Deparment of Public Utility Control, 702 A.2d 1179, 243 Conn. 235, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 436 (Colo. 1997).

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This consolidated appeal arises out of decisions of the named defendant, the department of public utility control (department), ordering intrastate cellular mobile communications providers to participate in the funding of the department’s Universal Service and Lifeline Programs.1 The plaintiffs, cellular mobile telecommunications providers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, appealed from those decisions to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes §§ 16-35 and 4-183 and § 16-1-17 (c) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. The trial court reversed both decisions, and the department appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court. The appeal was transferred to this [237]*237court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).

Subsequent to the trial court’s rendering of its judgment, General Statutes § 16-247e, which was the basis for the department’s orders that are at issue in this appeal, was amended by the legislature. See Public Acts 1997, No. 97-121, § 1. The department subsequently initiated a new proceeding to address issues related to the Universal Service and Lifeline Programs. At oral argument before this court, the department indicated that it will not seek contributions from the plaintiffs pursuant to the challenged orders. This court therefore can afford the plaintiffs no relief. “[I]t 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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ayala v. Smith, 236 Conn. 89, 93, 671 A.2d 345 (1996). The plaintiffs’ appeal therefore must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Related

Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc. v. Department of Public Utility Control
754 A.2d 128 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2000)
Peerless Insurance v. Tucciarone
708 A.2d 611 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)
Hartford Prin. v. St. Bd. of Lab. Rel., No. Cv96 0563733-S (Jan. 7, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 558 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
702 A.2d 1179, 243 Conn. 235, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metro-mobile-cts-of-fairfield-county-inc-v-deparment-of-public-utility-conn-1997.