Office of Consumer C. v. Dept./pub. Ut., No. Cv 94 054 18 34 (Dec. 19, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Office of Consumer C. v. Dept./pub. Ut., No. Cv 94 054 18 34 (Dec. 19, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12832

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 19, 1994

DocketNo. CV 94 054 18 34

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12832 (Office of Consumer C. v. Dept./pub. Ut., No. Cv 94 054 18 34 (Dec. 19, 1994)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Office of Consumer C. v. Dept./pub. Ut., No. Cv 94 054 18 34 (Dec. 19, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12832 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff Office of Consumer Counsel appeals a decision of the defendant department of public utility control. The department and defendants The Connecticut Light Power Company and Kimberly-Clark Corporation move to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The court finds the issues in favor of the defendants.

Certain essential facts are undisputed and are fully substantiated in the record and court file. The department mailed its final decision to all parties on July 26, 1994. The plaintiff filed its appeal in this court on September 13, 1994, the forty-ninth day after the mailing of the decision by the department.

General Statutes § 4-183(a) provides that an appeal of an administrative decision must be served on all parties of record and filed in the superior court "(w)ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision . . . or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under (§ 4-180)." Failure to file an appeal within the forty-five day time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Glastonbury Volunteer AmbulanceAssociation, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission etal, 227 Conn. 848 (1993).

The plaintiff argues that the appeal may be saved by the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes CT Page 12833 § 52-592. That statute does not apply to administrative appeals, however. Carbone v. Zoning Board of Appeals,126 Conn. 602 (1940). Practice Book § 256. The disposition of this motion is entirely controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in the Glastonbury Volunteer AmbulanceAssociation case, supra.

The defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

MALONEY, J.

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff Office of Consumer Counsel appeals a decision of the defendant department of public utility control. The department and defendants The Connecticut Light Power Company and Kimberly-Clark Corporation move to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The court finds the issues in favor of the defendants.

Certain essential facts are undisputed and are fully substantiated in the record and court file. The department mailed its final decision to all parties on July 26, 1994. The plaintiff filed its appeal in this court on September 13, 1994, the forty-ninth day after the mailing of the decision by the department.

General Statutes § 4-183(a) provides that an appeal of an administrative decision must be served on all parties of record and filed in the superior court "(w)ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision . . . or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under (§ 4-180)." Failure to file an appeal within the forty-five day time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Glastonbury Volunteer AmbulanceAssociation, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission etal, 227 Conn. 848 (1993).

The plaintiff argues that the appeal may be saved by the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes CT Page 12833 § 52-592. That statute does not apply to administrative appeals, however. Carbone v. Zoning Board of Appeals,126 Conn. 602 (1940). Practice Book § 256. The disposition of this motion is entirely controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in the Glastonbury Volunteer AmbulanceAssociation case, supra.

The defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

MALONEY, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-consumer-c-v-deptpub-ut-no-cv-94-054-18-34-dec-19-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack