Mozzochi v. Freedom of Information Commission

Connecticut Appellate Court

Mozzochi v. Freedom of Information Commission

688 A.2d 363, 44 Conn. App. 463, 1997 Conn. App. LEXIS 88

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 11, 1997

Docket15193

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 688 A.2d 363 (Mozzochi v. Freedom of Information Commission) 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

Mozzochi v. Freedom of Information Commission, 688 A.2d 363, 44 Conn. App. 463, 1997 Conn. App. LEXIS 88 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff C. J. Mozzochi¹ appeals from the judgment of the trial court enjoining him from bringing further appeals to the defendant freedom of information commission (FOIC) that (1) are brought frivolously without reasonable grounds and for the purpose of harassment and (2) would perpetuate an injustice or constitute an abuse of the FOIC’s administrative process. The injunction is further limited to appeals that are of the same kind, nature, scope, magnitude, frequency and purpose as the requests that were involved in four designated FOIC requests and a specified FOIC advisory opinion.

We note that the plaintiff appears pro se. It is, of course, the policy of this court “to allow great latitude to a litigant who, either by choice or necessity, represents himself in legal proceedings, so far as such latitude is consistent with the just rights of any adverse party.” [465]*465Bitonti v. Tucker, 162 Conn. 626, 627, 295 A.2d 545, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 851, 93 S. Ct. 62, 34 L. Ed. 2d 94 (1972). This is because “[a] party who, unskilled in such matters, seeks to remedy some claimed wrong by invoking processes which are at best technical and complicated, is very ill advised and assumes a most difficult task.” O’Connor v. Solomon, 103 Conn. 744, 745, 131 A. 736 (1926). Nonetheless, while the court exhibits some degree of leniency toward a pro se appellant, it cannot entirely disregard established principles of law.

We have carefully considered the record, briefs and the oral arguments of the parties. Having applied the appropriate standard of review, we conclude that the trial court’s decision conforms to the applicable law.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff C. J. Mozzochi¹ appeals from the judgment of the trial court enjoining him from bringing further appeals to the defendant freedom of information commission (FOIC) that (1) are brought frivolously without reasonable grounds and for the purpose of harassment and (2) would perpetuate an injustice or constitute an abuse of the FOIC’s administrative process. The injunction is further limited to appeals that are of the same kind, nature, scope, magnitude, frequency and purpose as the requests that were involved in four designated FOIC requests and a specified FOIC advisory opinion.

We note that the plaintiff appears pro se. It is, of course, the policy of this court “to allow great latitude to a litigant who, either by choice or necessity, represents himself in legal proceedings, so far as such latitude is consistent with the just rights of any adverse party.” [465]*465Bitonti v. Tucker, 162 Conn. 626, 627, 295 A.2d 545, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 851, 93 S. Ct. 62, 34 L. Ed. 2d 94 (1972). This is because “[a] party who, unskilled in such matters, seeks to remedy some claimed wrong by invoking processes which are at best technical and complicated, is very ill advised and assumes a most difficult task.” O’Connor v. Solomon, 103 Conn. 744, 745, 131 A. 736 (1926). Nonetheless, while the court exhibits some degree of leniency toward a pro se appellant, it cannot entirely disregard established principles of law.

We have carefully considered the record, briefs and the oral arguments of the parties. Having applied the appropriate standard of review, we conclude that the trial court’s decision conforms to the applicable law.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

688 A.2d 363, 44 Conn. App. 463, 1997 Conn. App. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mozzochi-v-freedom-of-information-commission-connappct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack