Wasfi v. Board of Veterinary Registration & Examination

Connecticut Appellate Court

Wasfi v. Board of Veterinary Registration & Examination

537 A.2d 548, 13 Conn. App. 817, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 86

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedFebruary 22, 1988

Docket5722

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 537 A.2d 548 (Wasfi v. Board of Veterinary Registration & Examination) 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

Wasfi v. Board of Veterinary Registration & Examination, 537 A.2d 548, 13 Conn. App. 817, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 86 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff is appealing the judgment

of the trial court dismissing his administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant, Connecticut Board of Veterinary Registration and Examination.

The trial court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the defendant was served outside the thirty-day time limitation mandated by General Statutes § 4-183. We agree.

This case is controlled by the holding in Rogers v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 195 Conn. 543, 550, 489 A.2d 368 (1985), which states that “[t]he failure to file an appeal from an administrative agency within the time set by statute renders the appeal invalid and deprives the courts of jurisdiction to hear it.” See also Royce v. Freedom of Information Commission, 177 Conn. 584, 587, 418 A.2d 939 (1979); Minichino v. Freedom of Information Commission, 6 Conn. App. 148, 149, 503 A.2d 1189 (1986).

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff is appealing the judgment

of the trial court dismissing his administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant, Connecticut Board of Veterinary Registration and Examination.

The trial court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the defendant was served outside the thirty-day time limitation mandated by General Statutes § 4-183. We agree.

This case is controlled by the holding in Rogers v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 195 Conn. 543, 550, 489 A.2d 368 (1985), which states that “[t]he failure to file an appeal from an administrative agency within the time set by statute renders the appeal invalid and deprives the courts of jurisdiction to hear it.” See also Royce v. Freedom of Information Commission, 177 Conn. 584, 587, 418 A.2d 939 (1979); Minichino v. Freedom of Information Commission, 6 Conn. App. 148, 149, 503 A.2d 1189 (1986).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 A.2d 548, 13 Conn. App. 817, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wasfi-v-board-of-veterinary-registration-examination-connappct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack