Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183

Section 4-183(f) confines judicial review to the agency record unless the court takes evidence of alleged procedural irregularities not shown in that record.

Blesso v. Board of Plumbing Piping Examiners · filed 1972-12-21(f)

The Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, at General Statutes § 4-183 (f), provides: "The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court." This provision clearly provides that a review shall be confined to the record of the hearing unless the court, in its discretion, requires additional evidence in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure.

Section 4-183(g) requires a court reviewing an agency decision to determine from the record whether the decision has a logical and rational basis or reflects illegality or an abuse of discretion; the court may not substitute its own discretion.

Board of Aldermen v. Bridgeport Community Antennae Television Co. · filed 1975-04-08(g)

In appeals of this nature the court cannot substitute its discretion for that legally vested in the commission, but determines on the record whether there is a logical and rational basis for the decision of the commission or whether, in the light of the evidence, it has acted illegally or in abuse of its discretion.

Section 4-183 confines judicial review of an agency decision to the record and bars a court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

Hansen v. Norton · filed 1977-01-25(f), (g)

The Uniform Administrative Procedure Act provides that the judicial review of an agency decision shall be confined to the record and that the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. General Statutes §4-183 (f) and (g).

Section 4-183(f) confines judicial review to the agency record and does not permit the reviewing court to take evidence itself.

Adamchek v. Board of Education · filed 1978-03-07(f)

Subsection (f) provides that “[t]he review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record.” The statute does not permit the court to take any evidence.

Section 4-183(g) limits judicial review of factual findings to whether the record contains substantial evidence; the court does not retry the case.

East Haven Economic Development Commission v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 1979-05-07(g)

Section 4-183 (g) makes it clear that this court does not try the case de novo. The court can do no more, on the factual questions presented, than to examine the record to determine whether the ultimate findings are supported by “substantial evidence.”

Section 4-183(g)(5) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency order for an evidentiary error only when the error prejudiced substantial rights and the decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Lawrence v. Kozlowski · filed 1976-09-28(g)(5)

Nonetheless, our scope of review is statutorily circumscribed, and we may reverse or modify an agency order on the basis of an erroneous eviden-tiary ruling only if “substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” General Statutes §4-183 (g) (5).

Section 4-183(f) generally confines judicial review to the agency record and permits the court to take evidence of procedural irregularities outside that record. The court has discretion whether to hear additional testimony.

Leib v. Board of Examiners for Nursing · filed 1979-03-20(f)

General Statutes §4-183 (f) provides: “The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.” ... On the record before us, including the reasons claimed by Leib for taking additional evidence, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion.

Section 4-183(g)(5) permits a reviewing court to examine the record when a commissioner denies a motion to correct findings and to correct findings that omit material, admitted facts.

Grogan v. City of New Britain · filed 1978-05-23(g)(5)

Further, “when a motion to correct the finding has been denied by the commissioner, [the court] may be called upon to review the record to determine whether there was any evidence to support the findings. General Statutes § 4-183 (g) (5); ... In the present case, the requisite procedure was followed by the plaintiff. The court reviewed the findings, adding the material and admitted fact that the pension the plaintiff receives derives from the city’s charter, and, concluding on the basis of that fact, that the statutes applied by the commissioner were inapplicable to this case. By so doing, the court acted, not only as it was authorized to act, but, indeed, as it was bound to act under the circumstances of this case.

Section 4-183(g)(5) limits judicial review of agency factfinding to whether the record supports the findings with substantial evidence; a court may not substitute its own judgment.

Persico v. Maher · filed 1983-09-13(g)(5)

The court can do no more, on the factual questions presented, than to examine the record to determine whether the ultimate findings were supported, as the statute requires, by substantial evidence.

Section 4-183(g) limits judicial review of an agency decision: the court cannot substitute its judgment for the agency’s and may sustain an appeal when the record lacks support for the agency’s action.

Town of East Windsor v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1985-01-14(g)

This court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the FOIC and can only act to sustain the ... appeal essentially if there is no support in the record for the action taken. General Statutes § 4-183 (g).

Section 4-183(f) does not permit parties to add facts on appeal for the reviewing court to decide factual questions anew.

Wilcox v. Administrator · filed 1983-09-30(f)

The parties’ impermissible insertion of new facts at the appellate level caused the court in effect to try the matter de novo and place it in the position of adjudicating new questions of fact. This it could not do.

Section 4-183(f) generally confines an administrative appeal to the agency record but permits evidence of procedural irregularities not shown in that record.

Ierardi v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1985-03-11(f)

On an administrative appeal to the Superior Court, “[t]he appeal shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. In cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in the court. The court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.” General Statutes § 4-183 (f). ... Although the plaintiff’s complaint has made allegations of procedural irregularities, it does not appear from an examination of the record that it is reasonably probable that evidence outside the record will be necessary for a determination of the appeal. ... Accordingly, the defendants’ objection to the request for interrogatories is sustained, without prejudice.

Section 4-183(f) requires the court, upon request, to hear oral argument and receive written briefs.

Shaw v. Planning Commission · filed 1985-11-26(f)

The Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-183 (f), requires a provisional hearing in its statement that “[t]he court, upon request, shall hear oral argument and receive written briefs.”

Section 4-183(e) permits a reviewing court to send additional evidence to the agency, but in an inland wetlands takings appeal the court should hear relevant new evidence itself.

Cioffoletti v. Planning & Zoning Commission · filed 1989-01-10(e)

Since this court has indicated that an administrative agency is incompetent to decide certain constitutional issues; ... it would make little sense for a trial court pursuant to § 4-183 (e) to remand a case to an inland wetlands commission for the purpose of hearing evidence relevant only to the issue of an unconstitutional taking, which that agency may not be empowered to resolve.

Section 4-183(i) generally confines an administrative appeal to the agency record, but permits the court to take evidence about alleged procedural irregularities not shown in that record.

Blaker v. Planning & Zoning Commission · filed 1991-06-04(i)

The only exception is that when “alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency are not shown in the record or if facts necessary to establish aggrievement are not shown in the record, proof limited thereto may be taken in the court.” General Statutes § 4-183 (i). Thus, the court was entitled to take evidence with respect to the prejudicial effect of the ex parte submission, a “procedural irregularity.”

Section 4-183(f) confines judicial review of an administrative appeal to the agency record.

Beechwood Gardens Tenants' Ass'n v. Department of Housing · filed 1990-04-10(f)

The statute governing this administrative appeal, however, specifies that “[t]he appeal shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record.” ... The plaintiffs are, therefore, necessarily limited in this appeal to the evidence presented at the DOH hearing and cannot be permitted to rely upon matters never called to the attention of any trier of fact.

Section 4-183(i) permits the reviewing court to hear testimony on a claim of prejudgment when the administrative record contains no evidence bearing on it.

Sack v. Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals, No. 51 00 34 (Oct. 30, 1990) · filed 1990-10-30(i)

Since there was no evidence bearing on this claim in the record of the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing (pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes section 4-183 (i)) the parties appeared on September 26, 1990 where the Court heard testimony on the issue.

Section 4-183(f) generally confines judicial review to the agency record but permits evidence of alleged procedural irregularities not shown in that record; the trial court has discretion to deny additional evidence.

Billings v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1989-04-25(f)

General Statutes § 4-183 (f) provides that an appeal shall be confined to the record but also provides that in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, proof thereon may be taken in court. ... On the record before us, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff s motion to introduce additional evidence.

Section 4-183 (f) permits a court to take evidence of alleged agency procedural irregularities that do not appear in the record, even when the record is adequate for substantial evidence review.

Adriani v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1991-08-20(f)

When, however, the trial court applies the substantial evidence test in reviewing the commission’s decision to dismiss the complaint, as it did in this case, it is inappropriate to refuse extrinsic evidence of alleged procedural irregularities on the ground that the existing record is adequate to conduct the review.

Section 4-183(f) allows a court to supplement the agency record with evidence of alleged procedural irregularities that do not appear in the record.

Pet v. Department of Health Services · filed 1994-03-08(f)

We note, further, that General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 4-183 (f) allows for supplementation of the record by the trial court if alleged administrative procedural irregularities are not reflected therein. ... Consequently, because of the potentially crucial impact of the plaintiffs claims of procedural irregularities on the propriety of the board’s decision, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence that would supplement the agency record.

Section 4-183(d) permits supplementation of the record when a missing exhibit may have affected the agency’s decision.

Dragan v. Connecticut Medical Examining Board · filed 1994-05-10(d)

In light of the exhibit’s potential importance and in the absence of an explicit finding by the trial court that the missing exhibit did not impact the board’s decision, we remand the case to the trial court for supplementation of the record on this issue.

Section 4-183(h) allows additional evidence to be taken before the agency, while subsection (i) limits the evidence a reviewing court may hear to procedural irregularities and facts needed to establish aggrievement.

Gaddam v. Rowe, No. Cv94-0356513 (Sep. 8, 1994) · filed 1994-09-08(h), (i)

The Commissioner's reliance upon General Statutes § 4-183 (h) is misplaced; that statute pertains to additional evidence being taken before the agency, not additional evidence taken directly by the court. General Statutes § 4-183 (i) pertains to evidence that the court may hear that is not in the record, but is limited to procedural irregularities and facts needed to establish aggrievement.

Section 4-183(f) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's on the weight of factual evidence.

Ward v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 93 006 91 72 (Sep. 15, 1994) · filed 1994-09-15(f)

General Statutes § 4-183 (f) provides that "(t)he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." ... Based on these familiar principles and the Appellate Court decisions cited above, the court concludes in this case that the hearing officer's admission of the police report containing the HGN test results, her consideration of that evidence and her finding that the police officer had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff were not unreasonable or in abuse of discretion.

Section 4-183(f) prevents a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency's judgment about the weight of evidence on factual questions.

Dolgner v. Commissioner of Human Resources, No. Cv 93 052 68 40 (1994) · filed 1994-12-08(f)

Having correctly determined to admit the testimony of Katin and Harss, the hearing officer was entitled to accept that testimony and accord it greater weight than the testimony of the plaintiff and her witnesses. General Statutes § 4-183 (f).

Section 4-183(i) permits evidence outside the agency record for procedural irregularities not shown in that record; disputes over findings of fact and conclusions of law do not qualify.

Leonard v. Dept. of Consumer Protection, No. Cv94 540747 (Oct. 27, 1994) · filed 1994-10-27(i)

The taking of additional evidence is controlled by General Statutes § 4-183 (i) which states: "The appeal shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. If alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency are not shown in the record . . . proof limited thereto may be taken in the court. . . ." The court does not believe that the plaintiffs have alleged irregularities in procedure. The plaintiffs have merely alleged that the facts found and legal conclusions drawn therefrom are not supported by the record. Plaintiffs are merely attempting to probe the mental decision making process of the Commissioner. Disputes over findings of fact and conclusions of law are not procedural irregularities requiring the court to go outside the record.

Section 4-183(i) allows a party to submit proof of an alleged agency procedural irregularity to the trial court to supplement the record.

United Cable Television Services Corp. v. Department of Public Utility Control · filed 1995-08-22(i)

Pursuant to § 4-183 (i), ... the plaintiff could have submitted proof of this alleged procedural irregularity to the trial court, thereby supplementing the record.

Section 4-183(h) permits an agency to accept additional evidence on remand when the issues on appeal are sufficiently novel.

Shew v. Freedom of Information Comm., No. Cv 940539639 (Sep. 19, 1995) · filed 1995-09-19(h)

The court finds that the issues presented by this appeal are sufficiently novel as to permit the commission's acceptance of additional evidence pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (h).

Section 4-183(h) permits supplementation of the administrative record only if the additional evidence is material and there are good reasons it was not presented to the agency.

Thomson v. Bd. of Firearms Permit Exmrs., No. Nnh 95 0369628 (Jan. 4, 1996) · filed 1996-01-04(h)

General Statutes § 4-183 (h) permits supplementation of the administrative record only if the additional evidence is both material and was not presented to the agency for good reasons. The plaintiff has identified only repetitions, not contradictions, of the evidence and claims presented to the board. His subsequent complaint to another agency raises a claim of discrimination that is not within the jurisdiction of the board. The court finds that the criteria of § 4-183 (h) are not met, and the motion to supplement the evidentiary record is denied.

Section 4-183(h) permits a court to remand an agency appeal for additional evidence when the evidence is material and there was good reason it was not presented to the agency earlier.

United Cable Tv Ser. v. Dpt. of Pub. U., No. Cv 95 054 56 53 (Jan. 19, 1996) · filed 1996-01-19(h)

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the court concludes that there was sufficient reason to excuse the failure of TCI to introduce the evidence at the original hearing. ... Accordingly, the court concludes that that document is material to the department's required analysis. ... In accordance with the provisions of § 4-183 (h), the case is remanded to the department for the taking of additional evidence.

Section 4-183(j) requires enough agency findings and reasoning for a court to determine whether a decision is erroneous or an abuse of discretion.

Pomarico's Service Center v. D. M. v. No. Cv 95 037 50 56 (Sep. 4, 1996) · filed 1996-09-04(j)

Section 4-183 (j) of the administrative procedure act requires the court to reverse an agency decision if it is found to be "(5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." If the court is to conduct a meaningful review of an agency's decision in order to determine if it is erroneous in view of the evidence "on the whole record" or if it is the result of an abuse of discretion, the court must be able to ascertain not only what factual findings the agency made, but also what the agency's reasoning was in reaching its conclusions and final decision.

Section 4-183(j) requires agency findings and reasoning sufficient for a court to review the decision against the whole record and for abuse of discretion.

Fiolek v. Commissioner of Motor Veh., No. Cv 96 056 59 98 (Apr. 10, 1997) · filed 1997-04-10(j)

Section 4-183 (j) of the administrative procedure act requires the court to reverse an agency decision if it is found to be "(5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." If the court is to conduct a meaningful review of an agency's decision in order to determine if it is erroneous in view of the evidence "on the whole record" or if it is the result of an abuse of discretion, the court must be able to ascertain not only what factual findings the agency made, but also what the agency's reasoning was in reaching its conclusions and final decision.

Section 4-183(h) permits a court to order additional evidence taken before an agency when the evidence is material and there are good reasons it was not presented during the agency proceeding.

Riley Energy Sys. v. Dept. of Pub. Utility, No. Cv97 0568390 (Oct. 31, 1997) · filed 1997-10-31(h)

Under General Statutes § 4-183 (h), the court may order that additional evidence be taken before the agency if "it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for [the] failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency." ... As to ¶¶ 1, 2 and 3, the court finds that the evidence sought is not material. ... In addition, the court cannot find that there are good reasons why this evidence was not presented during the proceeding.

Section 4-183(h) permits a court to order additional evidence taken before the agency if the evidence is material and there were good reasons for failing to present it earlier.

Connecticut Emp. Un., Inc. v. State, No. Cv97 0573468 (Feb. 24, 1998) · filed 1998-02-24(h)

Before ordering that the commissioner take further evidence, this court must determine 1) that the additional evidence is material and 2) that there were good reasons for the failure to present the evidence in the commissioner's original proceeding. ... The criteria of General Statutes § 4-183 (h) have not been met. The motion is denied.

Section 4-183(h) permits additional evidence to be taken before the agency only when it is material and there were good reasons for failing to present it earlier; failing to seek available intervenor status can defeat that showing.

Wyman v. State, No. Cv97-0573695 (Feb. 24, 1998) · filed 1998-02-24(h)

Before ordering that the department take further evidence, this court must determine 1) that the additional evidence is material and 2) that there were good reasons for the failure to present the evidence in the department's original proceeding. ... For this reason and the reasons set forth in its contemporaneous decision on the motion in the companion appeal, the court finds that the comptroller has not shown good reason for her failure to present this testimony before the department in the proceeding below. The motion is denied.

Section 4-183(h) requires a showing that additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failing to present it to the agency.

Hennessey v. Connecticut Emp. Rev. Bd., No. Cv97 0574356 (Apr. 28, 1998) · filed 1998-04-28(h)

To order that the additional evidence be presented to the agency below, this court must find that the evidence is material and that there are good reasons for the failure to present it below. ... The plaintiff has failed to show that there were good reasons for his failure to present this evidence at the hearing. The motion to present additional evidence is denied.

Section 4-183(h) does not treat ineffective assistance of counsel before an administrative agency as good reason, as a matter of law, for failing to present evidence there.

Salmon v. State Dept. of Health, No. Cv95 0323809 (Mar. 11, 1998) · filed 1998-03-11(h)

While she claims that her lawyer is to blame for not presenting this evidence, the court cannot find that as a matter of law ineffective assistance of counsel before an administrative agency constitutes a good reason under General Statutes § 4-183 (h).

Section 4-183(h) allows evidence outside the administrative record when a procedural error is claimed and the court grants a motion to adduce additional evidence.

Lowe v. Meriden Inland, No. Cv97-0256830s (Sep. 1, 1998) · filed 1998-09-01(h)

An appeal from an administrative proceeding is a record appeal, and the court is strictly confined thereto. The only exception to this long standing rule is a situation wherein an error in procedure is claimed, and the court grants a motion to adduce additional evidence. Lieb, supra at 92; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183 (h). No such motion was made in this case.

Section 4-183 permits evidence in court to address qualifying procedural irregularities and permits additional evidence before the agency when it is material and there is good reason it was not presented earlier.

Thompson v. State, No. Cv98 006 39 96 (Jun. 7, 1999) · filed 1999-06-07(h), (i)

Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiff cannot add additional evidence pursuant to § 4-183 (i) as the additional evidence does not concern a procedural irregularity. ... The court, accordingly, believes that the plaintiff has not met his burden of showing good reason for the introduction of additional evidence under § 4-183 (h).

Section 4-183(h) permits additional evidence to be taken before the agency only when the evidence is material and there were good reasons for not presenting it earlier; it does not provide for reversal based on a failure to produce that evidence.

Hellyar v. Commissioner, No. Cv 99 0497017s (Dec. 22, 1999) · filed 1999-12-22(h)

Accordingly, this court finds that plaintiff's Exhibit 1 is not material, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (h). While the plaintiff sought a reversal of the DMV decision in this matter based on the failure to produce the videotape, that remedy is unavailable under the statute. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to show that the videotape is material, and accordingly, this court will not order further evidence to be taken before the DMV hearing officer.

Section 4-183(h) permits a court to receive additional evidence on an administrative appeal if the evidence is material.

Ezikovich v. Commission On Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 2000-05-23(h)

According to § 4-183 (h), the court may allow an appellant from an administrative decision to present additional evidence if “it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material . ...” ... The statute was, therefore, immaterial to the plaintiffs claim, and the court correctly refused to allow the plaintiff to present additional evidence regarding § 5-248c.

Section 4-183(h) allows additional evidence in an administrative appeal only when it is material and there was good reason it was not presented to the agency.

Ross v. Wilson-Coker, No. Cv 00 0501203s (Oct. 19, 2000) · filed 2000-10-19(h)

Additions to the administrative record are narrowly permitted under subsection (h) of General Statutes § 4-183 1 . ... The plaintiff has not shown to the satisfaction of the court that the June 28, 2000 letter is material. ... Therefore, the motion to supplement the record is denied.

Section 4-183(h) permits additional evidence only when it is material and there was good reason it was not presented to the agency.

Salmon v. Department of Public Health & Addiction Services · filed 2000-07-11(h)

Before ordering that additional evidence be taken pursuant to § 4-183 (h), a court must (1) determine that the additional evidence is material and (2) that there is good reason for the failure to present the evidence in the original proceeding.

Section 4-183(g) requires an agency to transmit the administrative record within thirty days, but an incomplete filing does not automatically reverse the agency’s decision.

Vuoso v. Department of Consumer Protection, No. Cv 99-0267844 (Feb. 2, 2001) · filed 2001-02-02(g)

The statute itself does not provide for automatic reversal of the ... administrative decision when the agency fails to provide a complete record within thirty days.

Section 4-183(g) requires the agency to provide the entire administrative record so the court can review its decision.

Whalen v. O'meara, No. Cv 00 0504534s (May 1, 2001) · filed 2001-05-01(g)

General Statutes § 4-183 (g) mandated that "the agency shall transcribe any portion of the record that has not been transcribed and transmit to the reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceeding appealed from. . . ." ... Absent the entire record of the administrative proceeding, it is impossible for the court to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support the agency's finding of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 4-183(h) permits additional evidence on administrative appeal only when it is material and there was good reason for failing to present it to the agency.

Fahey v. Department of Social Services, No. Cv 99 0498893s (Feb. 15, 2001) · filed 2001-02-15(h)

The court finds that based upon the entire record before it, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the additional proposed evidence is material and there was good reason for the failure of the plaintiff to present it at the administrative hearing. Accordingly, it will not be considered.

Section 4-183(i) allows evidence of alleged irregularities in agency procedure, but the party alleging them must present evidence to substantiate the claim.

Nichols v. State Elections Enforcement, No. Cv01-0507694s (Nov. 7, 2001) · filed 2001-11-07(i)

While the plaintiff claims that attorney Garfield engaged in misconduct at the underlying hearing, the plaintiff has failed to present any evidence to this court to substantiate his claim of procedural irregularities. See General Statutes § 4-183 (i).

Section 4-183(i) generally confines administrative appeals to the record but permits evidence of procedural irregularities that the record does not show.

Preininger v. Monroe Pzc, No. Cv99 37 72 74 S (Dec. 17, 2002) · filed 2002-12-17(i)

While an administrative appeal "shall be confined to the record," General Statutes § 4-183 (i), an exception to this rule exists "if alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency are not shown in the record." General Statutes § 4-183 (i). See Baker II , supra, 146. The record does not show what town records were reviewed by the town planner while investigating the protest petition. Moreover, in light of the fact that the commission began the public hearing by expressly reserving its "validating" of the protest petition to an executive session, the plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to refute the town planner's opinion or to offer additional evidence as to the requisite ownership requirement. Under the circumstances, additional evidence is appropriate for an equitable determination of the appeal.

Section 4-183(h) permits a court to remand an administrative appeal for additional evidence when a timely application shows that the evidence is material and there were good reasons it was not presented to the agency.

Clark v. Commissioner of Motor Vehichles · filed 2018-07-17(h)

Because the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for remand to the department for the taking of additional evidence pursuant to § 4-183 (h), and because the absence of such evidence formed the basis for his motion to reargue or for reconsideration, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion.

Section 4-183(h) requires a party seeking to present additional evidence before an agency to show that the evidence is material and that there was good reason for not presenting it earlier; the court may still deny remand if those requirements are met.

Idlibi v. Connecticut State Dental Commission · filed 2025-03-11(h)

We reiterate that, once the moving party satis- fies these requirements, the court, in its discretion, nonetheless may deny the motion.

Section 4-183(i) confines judicial review of an administrative decision to the agency record, subject to limited exceptions.

Aquarion Water Co. of Connecticut v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority · filed 2025-07-15(i)

We decline to consider this evidence because it is outside of the administrative record, and PURA did not have, and could not have had, knowledge of this evidence at the time it rendered a final decision on Aquarion’s rate application. ... see also General Statutes § 4-183 (i) (administrative appeals ‘‘shall be confined to the record’’).

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal under the UAPA only from a final decision in a contested case; an agency decision for which no hearing was required does not qualify.

McAuliffe v. Carlson · filed 1973-01-08(a)

Under the UAPA, the plaintiff is entitled to appeal to this court only after he has received a final decision in a "contested case." General Statutes § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183(g) limits when a court may reverse or modify an agency ruling and permits reversal when the ruling violates statutory provisions.

Local Union No. 1522, International Ass'n of Firefighters v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations · filed 1973-10-23(g)

The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board and may reverse or modify the ruling of the board only for the reasons set forth in subsection (g) of § 4-183. Reversal is permitted if the board’s decision is in violation of statutory provisions.

Section 4-183(g) allows a court to find an agency conclusion of law clearly erroneous.

Maloney v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 1974-08-02(g)

The defendant's second conclusion of law was clearly erroneous. General Statutes § 4-183 (g).

Section 4-183(a) entitles a person who has exhausted administrative remedies and is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case to judicial review.

Wagner v. Connecticut Personnel Appeal Board · filed 1976-04-20(a)

The state personnel appeal board is a state board which is authorized to determine contested cases, and it is not exempted from the act. Arlene Wagner exhausted her administrative remedies and was aggrieved by the final decision in her contested case. She was, therefore, entitled to judicial review of the board’s action in the Court of Common Pleas. General Statutes § 4-183.

Section 4-183(g) limits judicial review of agency findings and bars a court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on questions of fact.

Board of Education v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1979-01-30(g)

The court is thus limited to determining whether the tribunal’s findings were supported by “substantial and competent evidence,” and whether the tribunal exceeded its authority. General Statutes § 4-183 (g).

Section 4-183(g) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision for an error of law, as well as for a finding that is clearly erroneous on the evidence.

Wilson v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1980-07-01(g)

Subsection (g) of § 4-183 authorizes the court to reverse or modify the decision of the commission for five reasons in addition to that stated by the commission. Indeed, the basis of the trial court’s action, and our own for that matter, is a conclusion that the decision of the commission was affected by an “error of law,” one of the grounds for reversal or modification enumerated in §4-183 (g).

Section 4-183 (g) (6) permits review of whether an agency decision is arbitrary or capricious; a decision supported by reasonable grounds is not arbitrary.

LOCAL 1219 v. Connecticut Labor Relations Board · filed 1976-08-03(g)(6)

Although the plaintiff makes several assertions in support of this claim, the main issue is whether the defendant board’s decision in City of New London and its application to the present case is “arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.” Greneral Statutes §4-183 (g) (6). ... Given the inevitability that the defendant board found in the nature of the effect of the clause and the impossibility of detecting its true influence, the defendant’s application of City of New London to the present case was not arbitrary.

Section 4-183 allows an affected public service company to seek court review of whether the PUCA followed statutory standards, held a fair hearing, and issued a rational order.

Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Council on Water Co. · filed 1978-06-19

Court review is available to the affected company under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4-183, to test the PUCA’s adherence to the statutory standards, to determine the fairness of the administrative hearing, and to review the rationality of any order issued by the PUCA which requires any alteration of the company’s internal affairs.

Section 4-183(g)(6) permits a court to find an agency ruling arbitrary when it conflicts with the purpose of the agency’s own order.

Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Public Utilities Control Authority. · filed 1978-10-03(g)(6)

Because of that inconsistency, the ruling is “arbitrary” within the purview of General Statutes § 4-183 (g) (6).

Section 4-183(g)(6) requires the court to review whether an agency decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Ambrogio v. Connecticut State Board of Firearms Permit Examiners · filed 1980-02-06(g)(6)

The issue to be decided is whether the defendant board’s decision was “. . . arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.” General Statutes § 4-183 (g) (6). ... The plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden. Accordingly, judgment may enter dismissing the appeal.

Section 4-183(g) requires judicial review of whether an agency acted illegally, arbitrarily, or in abuse of its discretion and whether the evidence supported its decision.

Board of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1980-07-22(g)

The scope of judicial review of the freedom of information commission’s decision that Woodstock Academy is a public agency within the meaning of the FOIA is delineated in General Statutes § 4-183 (g). This court, in reviewing the trial court’s decision sustaining the action of the commission, must determine whether the agency acted illegally, arbitrarily or in abuse of its discretion and whether its decision was supported by the evidence.

Section 4-183(g) limits judicial review of agency decisions; a court may reverse when the agency’s findings are clearly erroneous or its decision is arbitrary or capricious.

Town of Lebanon v. Wayland · filed 1983-10-03(g)

The plaintiffs have failed to sustain their burden of proving that the commission’s finding was clearly erroneous in view of the whole record. ... The plaintiffs have also failed to prove that the commission’s finding was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Section 4-183(g) permits a reviewing court to reverse or modify an agency decision for violations of statutory provisions, action beyond the agency’s authority, or other errors of law.

Plastic Distributors, Inc. v. Burns · filed 1985-09-10(g)

That act, however, provides four other bases on which a reviewing court may reverse or modify an agency decision. General Statutes § 4-183 (g). ... Those bases include reviewing the agency’s decision to see if it is in violation of statutory provisions, in excess of the statutory authority of the agency or affected by other error of law. General Statutes § 4-183 (g) (1), (2), (4).

Section 4-183(g) bars the trial court from substituting its judgment for that of the agency.

Denby v. Commissioner, Department of Income Maintenance · filed 1986-01-14(g)

General Statutes § 4-183 (g) prohibits the trial court from substituting its judgment for that of the agency.

Section 4-183(g) allows a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that violates constitutional provisions, including the federal Constitution.

Obeda v. Connecticut Board of Registration for Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors · filed 1983-08-12(g)

The statutory provision for appeal from the Board’s ruling provides that the court may reverse or modify the Board’s decision if it is in violation of “constitutional” provisions. Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4-183(g) (1981). Though no Connecticut cases on point have been found, it seems natural that “constitutional” includes the federal constitution.

Section 4-183(g) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that violates law or is arbitrary or capricious.

Judiciary Committee of the General Assembly v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1983-10-31(g)

The court may, however, reverse or modify a decision if it finds that the decision is: “(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions . . . (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”

Section 4-183(g) permits judicial review of a claim that an agency acted beyond its statutory authority or jurisdiction after the agency has decided the issue.

Greater Bridgeport Transit District v. Local Union 1336 · filed 1989-06-13(g)

A claim that an administrative agency has acted beyond its statutory authority or jurisdiction properly may be the subject of an administrative appeal. See General Statutes § 4-183 (g).

Section 4-183 (g) requires courts reviewing utility rate orders to assess the challenged order and any prejudice to the regulated company on a case-by-case basis.

Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Department of Public Utility Control · filed 1990-12-11(g)

Under the appropriate standard set out in § 4-183 (g), courts must undertake a case-by-case analysis to determine the merits of the challenged rate order and the prejudice, if any, to the regulated company.

Section 4-183(j)(4) permits a court to reverse an agency decision for an error of law without deferring to the agency’s incorrect legal conclusion.

Board of Education v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1991-01-22(j)(4)

Under the UAPA, a trial court may reverse the decision of an administrative agency if that decision evinces an “error of law.” General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (4). The trial court need not defer to an incorrect decision of law by the agency.

Section 4-183(g) requires courts to review an agency’s interpretation of law for correctness rather than limit review to whether substantial evidence supports it.

Connecticut Hospital Ass'n v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care · filed 1986-06-03(g)

We conclude therefore that the trial court’s standard of review was, in the present case, too limited. This conclusion, however, does not require reversal. Rather, we will review the commission’s declaratory ruling with our focus on whether the ruling was correct as a matter of law.

Section 4-183(g)(4) permits a court to reverse an agency decision affected by an error of law.

Board of Pardons v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1989-08-29(g)(4)

The trial court’s reversal of the FOIC decision, as based on “an unsound proposition of law,” was authorized by § 4-183 (g) (4).

Section 4-183(j) requires a reviewing court to evaluate a cleanup order included in an agency decision.

Connecticut Building Wrecking Co. v. Carothers · filed 1991-05-07(j)

By affirming the administrative decision without evaluating the cleanup order contained within it, the trial court failed to complete the judicial review required by § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) provides the standard for reviewing whether an inland wetlands agency's conduct involved unlawful procedure or was otherwise improper.

Baron Development v. Inland Wetlands, No. 51 79 40 (Nov. 25, 1991) · filed 1991-11-25(j)

It cannot be found that the delay was a result of unlawful procedure on the part of defendant agency or that its actions were improper within the standards set be Section 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183 limits judicial review of agency action to whether the agency acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.

Hastings v. Planning Zoning Comm'n, No. Cv 90 381318 (Feb. 18, 1992) · filed 1992-02-18

The scope of this court's review is very limited and is governed the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Connecticut General Statutes section 4-183 . "The court's ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in the light of the evidence, the [agency] has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of [its] discretion."

Section 4-183(j) limits review of substantive agency decisions to whether the agency acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion.

New England Rehabilitation Hospital of Hartford, Inc. v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care · filed 1992-07-20(j)

The court’s ultimate duty as to claims of substantive errors is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the agency has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion.

Section 4-183(j)(1) permits review of whether an agency’s application of law violates the constitution, but does not permit a facial constitutional challenge to a statute or regulation.

Barannikova v. Town of Greenwich, (Apr. 2, 1993) · filed 1993-04-02(j)(1)

This conclusion is not contradicted by the language of General Statutes 4-183 (j)(1). That subsection contemplates administrative appeals to the Superior Court only on the ground that the agency's application of the law violates the constitution. It does not authorize a court to review in an appeal claims that a statutory provision and regulation are facially unconstitutional.

Section 4-183(j) limits when a court may reverse an agency decision on administrative appeal.

Bloomfield Education Assoc. v. Frahm, No. Cv93 0703802s (Jul. 13, 1993) · filed 1993-07-13(j)

For administrative appeals filed under the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-21i (d), the scope of judicial review is defined by Connecticut General Statutes Section 4-183 (j). That subsection indicates that the reviewing court may only reverse the decision of an administrative agency if that agency's decision is: "(1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion."

Section 4-183 (j) permits a court to modify or reverse an agency decision only when a listed error has prejudiced the appellant’s substantial rights.

Bloomfield Education Ass'n v. Frahm · filed 1994-08-09(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) permits modification or reversal of an agency’s decision only if “substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”

Section 4-183(j)(1) requires a reviewing court to consider whether an agency decision violates constitutional provisions, but constitutional issues should be decided only when necessary to resolve the appeal.

providence/worcester Rr. v. Com. of Trans., No. Cv 94-0540220 (Jun. 6, 1995) · filed 1995-06-06(j)(1)

The commissioner's contention that the standard of review of a decision of an administrative agency precludes consideration of PWRCO's constitutional issues, however, overlooks General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(1), which requires the reviewing court to determine whether the agency decision is "[i]n violation of constitutional . . . provisions." Implicitly that mandate recognizes the principle that constitutional issues should not be decided unless it is necessary for a proper adjudication of an appeal.

Section 4-183(f) requires reversal when a statutory or constitutional violation prejudices a party’s substantial rights.

Senior v. Commissioner Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 94 053 16 89 (Mar. 13, 1996) · filed 1996-03-13(f)

General Statutes § 4-183 (f) provides that the court must reverse an administrative decision if the court finds that substantial rights of the plaintiff have been prejudiced because of constitutional or statutory violations. In this case, the plaintiff's testimony was the only evidence that was admitted to counter the police officer's written report on the crucial issue of probable cause. The failure or inability of Hearing Officer Kotowski to consider that testimony before ruling on the probable cause issue obviously created substantial prejudice to the plaintiff. For that reason, the plaintiff's appeal must be sustained.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm an agency decision when it finds the decision was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion.

Sarno v. Board of Firearms Permit Exam., No. Cv 95 037 26 09 (Oct. 26, 1995) · filed 1995-10-26(j)

The court concludes that, in light of the evidence, the board's decision was not unreasonable, arbitrary or in abuse of its discretion. Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j), therefore, the court must affirm the decision.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to sustain an administrative appeal when an agency decision prejudices the appellant’s substantial rights through a constitutional violation or abuse of discretion.

Singh v. Commissioner of Public Health, No. Cv 94 054 44 81 (Dec. 20, 1995) · filed 1995-12-20(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional provisions . . . or (6) . . . characterized by abuse of discretion." In such event, the court must sustain the appeal.

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to set aside an agency decision when the agency violates a statute, exceeds its authority, or uses unlawful procedure.

Burinskas v. Dept. of Social Serv., No. Hhb Cv 95-0466135 (Feb. 22, 1996) · filed 1996-02-22(j)(1)–(3)

By adjudicating the plaintiffs' claims on the basis of a standard different from the standard plainly stated in the governing federal statute and state regulations, the department acted in violation of statutory provision, in excess of the statutory authority of the agency, and upon unlawful procedure. Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(1), 2), and (3), the determination by the department must be set aside.

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that violates constitutional or statutory provisions, is clearly erroneous in light of the whole record, or is arbitrary or capricious.

Kirei v. Hadley, No. Cv96-0053655s (Sep. 11, 1996) · filed 1996-09-11(j)

The court's role in appeals such as this is rather sharply circumscribed. The court may reverse the decision of the agency if the court finds that the decision violates constitutional or statutory provisions; is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or was arbitrary or capricious. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to sustain an administrative appeal when the agency's decision rests on an erroneous interpretation of law and is unreasonable.

New London Planning Zon. Comm. v. Foic, No. Cv 94 053 19 47 (May 1, 1996) · filed 1996-05-01(j)

Because the court concludes that the FOIC's decision and order in this case are based on an erroneous interpretation of the applicable statute and are unreasonable, the plaintiff's appeal must be sustained. See General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j)(6) permits an administrative appeal based on arbitrary and capricious action.

Ash Securities, Inc. v. Mandanici, No. Cv96 032 96 08 S (Aug. 14, 1996) · filed 1996-08-14(j)(6)

Clearly, Mandanici's defense alleging that the Town of Stratford's actions were arbitrary and capricious are grounds for an administrative appeal. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(6).

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm an agency decision unless a specified error prejudices the appellant’s substantial rights.

Jutkowitz v. State, No. Cv93 0043936 S (Aug. 30, 1996) · filed 1996-08-30(j)

The decision of the agency shall be affirmed unless the court finds that substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because of the reasons specified in §§ 4-183 (j)(1) through (6). ... In addition, the court finds that the decision of the Board has not prejudiced the substantial rights of the plaintiff based on any of the reasons specified in §§ 4-183 (j)(1) through (6).

Section 4-183(j)(4) permits a trial court to reverse an agency decision for an error of law.

Furhman v. Freedom of Information Comm., No. Cv 950553651 (Nov. 21, 1996) · filed 1996-11-21(j)(4)

A trial court may reverse the decision of the FOIC if the decision evinces an error of law pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(4).

Section 4-183(j)(4) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that reflects an error of law.

Auto Imports, Inc. v. Dmv, No. Nnh Cv96 0380847 (Nov. 26, 1996) · filed 1996-11-26(j)(4)

A court hearing on an administrative appeal may reverse the decision of an agency where the ruling reflects an error of law. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(4).

Section 4-183(j)(6) allows a court to overturn an agency decision for abuse of discretion.

Jutkowitz v. Harriman, No. Cv96 0560977 S (Jan. 7, 1997) · filed 1997-01-07(j)(6)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(6) establishes abuse of discretion as a grounds for a court overturning an administrative decision.

Section 4-183(j) allows a court to sustain an administrative appeal when the agency's decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or affected by an error of law.

Fellows v. Board of Firearms Permit Exam., No. Cv 960558357 (Feb. 7, 1997) · filed 1997-02-07(j)

On the other hand, the court may not affirm an agency's decision if it is unreasonable, arbitrary or affected by error of law. ... Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j), the plaintiffs appeal is sustained.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm an agency decision when none of its six grounds for reversal is established.

Joyell v. Commissioner of Education · filed 1997-06-17(j)

In the present case, the trial court did not find any of the six exceptions and, therefore, was bound by the statute to affirm the board’s decision.

Section 4-183 permits relief for an appealing party whose substantial rights have been prejudiced, but does not authorize relief requested by a party that did not appeal.

Zezzo v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv970572555 (Oct. 17, 1997) · filed 1997-10-17

General Statutes § 4-183 provides relief for the appealing party if the court finds that substantial rights of that party have been prejudiced. The commissioner is not the appealing party. Accordingly, this court is without the statutory authority to provide the relief requested by the commissioner.

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to sustain an administrative appeal when the agency's decision is arbitrary and unreasonable.

Loper v. Commissioner of Insurance, No. Cv 96 053 78 57 (Jul. 31, 1997) · filed 1997-07-31(j)

Based on the factors summarized above, the court concludes that the decision was arbitrary and unreasonable under the particular facts of this case. It may not, CT Page 8012 therefore, be affirmed. Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j), the plaintiffs' appeal is sustained.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court reviewing agency action to consider whether the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or in abuse of its discretion.

O'Connell v. Freedom of Information Comm., No. Cv97 0111859 (Nov. 17, 1997) · filed 1997-11-17(j)

Viewing the record as a whole, the court does not see support for these arguments nor can it find that the FOIC acted arbitrarily or capriciously or in abuse of its discretion. General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of an agency decision to whether the agency acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.

Clarke v. Connecticut Dep't of Corrections, No. Cv97 0566782 (Nov. 26, 1997) · filed 1997-11-26(j)

It is well established that judicial review of an agency decision is limited. General Statutes § 4-183 (j); Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commissioner v. Freedom of Information Commission , 233 Conn. 28 , 39 (1995). ... Under the applicable law including that of the scope of review for administrative appeals and upon review of the record, the court cannot find that the board acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm an agency decision unless an error listed in the section prejudices the appellant's substantial rights.

Holcomb v. Commissioner Dept. of Soc. Serv., No. Cv970566407 (Dec. 11, 1997) · filed 1997-12-11(j)

General Statutes § 4 183(j) in part provides: The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. ... Therefore, the hearing officer's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the record. The appeal is dismissed.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm an agency decision unless one of the six listed grounds for reversal is present.

Menillo v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1997-12-23(j)

In the present case, the trial court did not find any of the six exceptions present and, therefore, was bound by the statute to affirm the commission’s decision.

Section 4-183(j) limits judicial review of agency decisions and requires courts to respect the agency’s factual findings.

Domestic Violence Services of Greater New Haven, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1998-01-20(j)

The trial court determined that the commission’s decision with respect to the agency status of the plaintiff “was in excess of the statutory authority of the agency and was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.” See General Statutes § 4-183 (j). On the basis of our review of the record and the trial court’s memorandum of decision, we hold that the trial court did not violate the judicial standard of review.

Section 4-183(j)(6) permits a court to reverse an agency decision if it is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Bower v. Commissioner of the Dmv, No. Cv97 0575396 (Apr. 6, 1998) · filed 1998-04-06(j)(6)

In order for this court to reverse the commissioner's decision not to schedule a hearing, it must find that the decision was "arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion." General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(6). The record and undisputed facts do not support such a finding.

Section 4-183(j) allows a court to sustain an appeal from an agency decision when the agency violated a statute or made another error of law.

Ezikovich v. Comm. Human Rt. Opp. Dph, No. Cv97-0567872 (May 11, 1998) · filed 1998-05-11(j)

Section 4-183 (j) allows the court to sustain an appeal of an agency decision where persons aggrieved by an agency decision demonstrate that the agency violated statutory provisions or made other errors of law.

Section 4-183(j)(3) and (4) permits a court to sustain an administrative appeal and remand for further proceedings when notice was inadequate and the agency decision lacked sufficient findings.

Taylor v. Conn. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv98 0582129 (Nov. 16, 1998) · filed 1998-11-16(j)(3) and (4)

The Department of Motor Vehicles concedes that the proceedings which resulted in the decision involved inadequate CT Page 13106 notice to the parties. The court further finds from its review of the decision that it contains insufficient findings relating to the obligations of United Pacific Insurance Company and/or Western Surety Company. The court sustains the plaintiff's appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(3) and (4); and remands the case for further proceedings involving the plaintiff's claims with respect to both surety companies.

Section 4-183(j)(6) permits a court to set aside an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights because it is arbitrary or capricious.

Gross v. State, No. Cv 98 0164993s (Apr. 28, 1999) · filed 1999-04-28(j)(6)

The plaintiff urges this court, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(6), to find that the substantial rights of the plaintiff have been "prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." To the extent discussed above, under equitable estoppel, the DSS determination was grossly inequitable, arbitrary and capricious.

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to sustain an administrative appeal when an agency decision prejudices substantive rights through legal error or a conclusion clearly erroneous on the whole record.

Burke v. State. O. Conn. Dep. of Soc. S., No. Cv-97-0543257 (Feb. 22, 1999) · filed 1999-02-22(j)

The Burkes' substantive rights were prejudiced by the Department's decision. ... It is both affected by error of law and clearly erroneous in view of the evidence on the whole record. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j)(4) permits a court to reverse an agency decision for an error of law without deferring to the agency's incorrect legal interpretation.

Zoning B. of A./town of Plainfield v. Foic, No. Cv 99 0497917s (May 3, 2000) · filed 2000-05-03(j)(4)

Under the UAPA, a trial court may reverse a decision of an administrative agency if that decision evinces an `error of law'. General Statutes § 4-183 (j)(4). The trial court may not defer to an incorrect decision of law by the agency.

Section 4-183(j) requires affirmance unless substantial rights were prejudiced by unlawful administrative procedure.

A. Aiudi Sons v. Plainville Planning, No. Cv 97 0483831s (May 10, 2000) · filed 2000-05-10(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) requires the court to affirm the decision appealed from unless the court finds that "substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings . . . conclusions, or decisions are. (3) made upon unlawful procedure. . . ."

Section 4-183 (j) (6) does not authorize a court to set aside an agency decision as arbitrary or capricious solely because the combined effect of correctly applied statutes seems unfair.

Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Department of Public Utility Control · filed 2003-09-30(j)(6)

Finally, we address the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly determined that the cumulative effect of the department’s rulings was not so unfair, unjust and unreasonable as to be arbitrary or capricious within the meaning of § 4-183 (j) (6). ... We have no authority to order the department to ignore one or the other of these statutory mandates merely because their combined effect may be perceived as burdensome or unfair. Accordingly, we reject this claim.

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to set aside an agency finding that is clearly erroneous on the whole record or reflects an unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Pools By Murphy & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Protection · filed 2003-11-21(j)

The commissioner’s finding that the attorney’s fees were reasonable was “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record” and was a “clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. . . .” General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) requires an appellant to meet its grounds for reversal of an agency’s final decision.

DeSteph v. Department of Banking · filed 2012-02-29(j)

The court has considered the issues raised by the plaintiff and does not find that he has met the provisions of General Statutes § 4-183 (j) for reversal of the final decision of the department. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Section 4-183(j) permits reversal on judicial review only when a listed defect in an agency decision prejudices the appellant’s substantial rights.

Papic v. Burke · filed 2009-03-17(j)

In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that the defendant’s order and the court’s review thereof do not meet any of the requisites set forth in § 4-183 (j) that would permit reversal of the judgment.

Section 4-183(j)(6) permits a court to set aside an agency decision as an abuse of discretion when the agency imposes a deadline unsupported by the record or applicable law.

Lash v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 2009-08-04(j)(6)

Neither the commission’s decision nor the administrative record reveals the reason, if any, that the commission determined that two weeks was an appropriate time limitation for Lash to comply with Whitaker’s request, and no such limitation appears in any applicable statute or regulation. As such, we conclude that the time limitation of two weeks imposed by the commission is an arbitrary limitation and thus an abuse of discretion. See General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (6).

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to sustain an administrative appeal when an agency decision made upon unlawful procedure prejudices the appellant's substantial rights.

Godaire v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. · filed 2017-06-21(j)(3)

We agree that substantial rights of the plaintiff have been prejudiced because the hearing officer's decision was made upon unlawful procedure. See General Statutes § 4-183(j).

Section 4-183(j) permits judicial review of claims that an agency violated a statute, exceeded its authority, or used unlawful procedure.

Metropolitan District v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 2018-03-27(j)

The plaintiff has offered no explanation as to why an appeal pursuant to § 4-183 would be inadequate to review such claims, particularly when that statute expressly encompasses allegations that an agency has acted in violation of statutory provi- sions, in excess of its statutory authority, or upon unlawful procedure; General Statutes § 4-183 (j); or why the Superior Court in such an appeal could not provide the plaintiff with adequate relief.

Section 4-183(j) requires the appellant to show that an agency decision was unsupported by substantial evidence or was unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion.

Adams v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2018-05-22(j)

The plaintiff has not borne his burden of proving that the hearing officer acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of her discretion in finding sufficient evidence of refusal.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for the agency’s on the weight of factual evidence.

Matthew C. v. Commissioner of Children & Families · filed 2019-03-26(j)

First, the act makes clear that a ‘‘court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.’’ General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183 (j) permits a court to reverse an agency order only on the specified grounds for judicial review; concerns about an injunction alone do not justify vacating it.

Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert · filed 2022-04-26(j)

An order of the commission may be reversed on appeal only when that order is ‘‘(1) [i]n violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.’’ General Statutes § 4-183 (j); ... In view of these principles, although we share the concerns expressed by the trial court, we find none sufficient to warrant the court’s decision to simply vacate the injunction as a matter of law.

Section 4-183 permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when specified legal or discretionary errors prejudice the appellant’s substantial rights.

Paul Bailey's, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 1975-01-21

The court, however, may reverse or modify his decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are in violation of statutory provisions, because they are in excess of his statutory authority or are affected by other error of law, or because they are ... characterized by abuse of discretion or are clearly an unwarranted exercise of discretion. General Statutes § 4-183.

Section 4-183(g) permits reversal or modification of an agency decision when a statutory violation prejudices an appellant’s substantial rights.

Murphy v. Berlin Board of Education · filed 1974-12-10(g)

Under the act the lower court was empowered to “affirm the decision of the agency or remand the ease for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of . . . statutory provisions.” General Statutes § 4-183 (g). In light of the foregoing it follows that the conclusions of the court in dismissing the appeal cannot be sustained.

Section 4-183 (g) (1) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that violates statutory provisions when the violation substantially prejudices the appellant.

Carlson v. Kozlowski · filed 1977-01-18(g)(1)

This ease, however, turns on the authority of a court to reverse an agency decision under § 4-183 (g) (1), where the administrative decision is in “violation of . . . statutory provisions,” such as § 4-178 of the General Statutes. ... It follows that the use of this hearsay evidence substantially prejudiced the plaintiff. The Court of Common Pleas properly sustained the appeal.

Section 4-183(g) permits a court to reverse an agency decision when clearly erroneous findings or conclusions prejudice the appellant’s substantial rights.

Storace v. Mariano · filed 1978-01-27(g)

While the court may not substitute its discretion for that of the board, it may reverse a decision "if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, . . . conclusions, or decisions are . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record . . . ." (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 4-183 (g).

Section 4-183(g)(5) requires an appellant seeking reversal for an erroneous agency evidentiary ruling to show prejudice to substantial rights.

Tomlin v. Personnel Appeal Board · filed 1979-04-17(g)(5)

In order to reverse an agency decision on the basis of an erroneous evidentiary ruling, it is necessary that the appellant demonstrate that “substantial rights of [his] have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are ... (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record.” General Statutes § 4-183 (g) (5).

Section 4-183(g) requires an appellant to show prejudice to their rights before obtaining relief for an agency’s improper ex parte communication.

Henderson v. Department of Motor Vehicles · filed 1985-05-28(g)

General Statutes § 4-183 (g) provides, in part, that the court may reverse or modify the decision of an agency under the UAPA “if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative . . . decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions . . . .” ... We hold that in order to be entitled to relief, a plaintiff must show prejudice to his rights resulting from an ex parte communication which is in violation of General Statutes § 4-181.

Section 4-183(g)(6) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when arbitrary findings or conclusions prejudice an appellant’s substantial rights.

E.I.S., Inc. v. Connecticut Board of Registration for Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors · filed 1986-06-03(g)(6)

A court may, however, reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are arbitrary. General Statutes § 4-183 (g) (6). ... The board’s finding that the three statements contained in E.I.S.’s environmental impact report constitute professional engineering is therefore arbitrary and has the unreasonable effect of restricting mere commentary.

Section 4-183(g) requires prejudice to a party’s substantial rights before a court may reverse or modify an agency decision, even when the agency violated the prohibition on ex parte communications.

Henderson v. Department of Motor Vehicles · filed 1987-03-10(g)

A plaintiff who also showed “substantial prejudice” to his rights, satisfying the predicate established by § 4-183 (g) for relief upon any of the grounds enumerated therein, would thus be entitled to reversal or modification of the agency decision quite apart from § 4-181.

Section 4-183(g)(1) requires an appellant to show prejudice to substantial rights before a court may reverse or modify an agency decision for a statutory violation.

Goldberg v. Insurance Department · filed 1988-04-12(g)(1)

In order for a reviewing court to reverse or modify an agency’s decision, General Statutes § 4-183 (g) (l)... requires the court to find that substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced.

Section 4-183(g)(4) permits reversal for an ex parte communication when it prejudices substantial rights by irrevocably tainting the agency’s decisionmaking process.

Martone v. Lensink · filed 1988-05-03(g)(4)

Section 4-183 (g) (4) also provides, however, that an agency’s decision may be reversed or modified “if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative [decision is]. . . affected by other error of law . . . . ” In the context of ex parte communications, the appropriate inquiry regarding prejudice to the appellant’s right must focus on whether “the agency’s decisionmaking process was irrevocably tainted so as to make the ultimate judgment of the agency unfair.”

Section 4-183(g) requires an appellant to show substantial prejudice from an agency error to obtain relief.

Levinson v. Connecticut Board of Chiropractic Examiners · filed 1989-06-20(g)

Levinson can claim no relief from the court unless he can show that he was substantially prejudiced by the board’s error.

Section 4-183(g) requires material prejudice from a procedural deficiency before a reviewing court sets aside an agency decision.

Jutkowitz v. Department of Health Services · filed 1991-08-13(g)

Even if we were to conclude that the twentieth count failed to provide adequate notice to the plaintiff, our disposition of this issue would be the same because the plaintiff did not suffer material prejudice as a result of this alleged procedural deficiency.

Section 4-183(g) permits a court to modify or reverse an agency decision when substantial rights have been prejudiced by one of the specified defects in the decision.

Connecticut State Medical Society v. Connecticut Board of Examiners · filed 1988-08-23(g)

Section 4-183 (g) permits modification or reversal of an agency’s decision “if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”

Section 4-183(g) permits a court to modify or reverse an agency decision when specified errors prejudice the appellant’s substantial rights.

Board of Education v. Connecticut State Employees Retirement Commission · filed 1989-03-28(g)

Section 4-183 (g) permits modification or reversal of an agency’s decision ‘if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.’

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when specified errors prejudice the appellant’s substantial rights.

Lieberman v. State Board of Labor Relations · filed 1990-08-14(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j), as amended to take effect July 1,1989, permits modification or reversal of an agency’s decision if “substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”

Section 4-183(g) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision only when a statutory ground has prejudiced the appellant's substantial rights.

Riquier v. State Dept. of Liquor Control, No. Cv88-344678 (May 28, 1991) · filed 1991-05-28(g)

This court's standard of review of the merits of an agency's decision is limited by Connecticut General Statutes Section 4-183 (g). The agency's decision may not be reversed or modified unless the plaintiffs' "substantial rights . . . have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions" violate one of the statute's six provisions.

Section 4-183(j) permits reversal of an agency decision for defective notice only when the error prejudiced the appellant.

Bostrom v. State, No. Cv91-0391558 (Apr. 15, 1992) · filed 1992-04-15(j)

Although our Supreme Court has not considered the precise issue raised in this appeal it has ruled in a similar case that as a matter of statutory construction Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 4-183 (j) permits reversal of an agency decision only upon a showing that the aggrieved party was prejudiced by the agency error. ... Based on Henderson and Martone, defendant's admitted failure to send proper notice to the plaintiff in this case does not require reversal of the agency action unless plaintiff has been prejudiced by that error.

Section 4-183(j)(5) requires an appellant to show that an agency decision was clearly erroneous on the whole record and prejudiced the appellant’s substantial rights.

Schallenkamp v. Delponte · filed 1992-12-01(j)(5)

In order to prevail in this appeal, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that substantial rights possessed by her have been prejudiced because the decision to suspend her right to operate a vehicle in this state was “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5); Lawrence v. Kozlowski, 171 Conn. 705, 713-14, 372 A.2d 110 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 969, 97 S. Ct. 2930, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1066 (1977).

Section 4-183(j)(5) places on an appellant the burden of showing that an agency decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Harrington v. DelPonte · filed 1994-03-17(j)(5)

In appealing from an administrative decision, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the decision to suspend his operator’s license is “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.” General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (5); see also Lawrence v. Kozlowski, 171 Conn. 705, 713-14, 372 A.2d 110 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 969, 97 S. Ct. 2930, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1066 (1977).

Section 4-183 applies harmless error to administrative appeals: a court must affirm an agency decision unless the error prejudiced the appellant’s substantial rights.

Connecticut Rec. v. Dept. of Env. Prot., No. Cv 93-0524827-S (May 6, 1994) · filed 1994-05-06(j)

Section 4-183 provides that "[T]he court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that the substantial rights of the person appealing had been prejudiced because the administrative . . . decisions are . . . in violation of constitutional . . . provisions." This provision makes the doctrine of harmless error applicable to administrative appeals.

Section 4-183(g) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision for a procedural irregularity only if it prejudiced the appellant's substantial rights.

Pet v. Department of Health Services, No. Cv 91 039 64 73 (Sep. 9, 1994) · filed 1994-09-09(g)

Second, the court may CT Page 9067 reverse or modify the board's final decision only if the court finds that "substantial rights" of the plaintiff were prejudiced by such procedural irregularity. General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 4-183 (g).

Section 4-183(j) does not permit reversal for an evidentiary error unless it prejudiced the appellant's substantial rights.

Norwalk Yellow Cab v. Dept. of Transp., No. Cv 93 070 46 76 (Jul. 6, 1994) · filed 1994-07-06(j)

Pursuant to § 4-183 (j), the court must affirm the agency's decision unless it finds that substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced by errors of law or that the agency's factfinding is clearly erroneous in view of the evidence in the record. ... Although the hearing officer erred in admitting the letters, his decision may not be reversed on that basis unless substantial rights of the plaintiff were prejudiced as a result. That did not happen.

Section 4-183(g) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision for a procedural irregularity only if it prejudiced the appellant’s substantial rights.

Pet v. Department of Health Services, No. Cv 91 039 64 73 (Aug. 11, 1994) · filed 1994-08-11(g)

Second, the court may reverse or modify the board's final decision only if the court finds that "substantial rights" of the plaintiff were prejudiced by such procedural irregularity. General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 4-183 (g).

Section 4-183(j) requires prejudice to the appellant's substantial rights before a court may reverse an agency decision for error.

Clark v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. 528961 (Nov. 15, 1994) · filed 1994-11-15(j)

In deciding this appeal the court's scope of review is limited by the provisions of General Statutes § 4-183 (j) Buckley v. Muzio , 200 Conn. 1 , 3 (1986). ... It cannot be found that plaintiff's substantial rights have been prejudiced because of any error in the administrative findings, inferences, conclusion or decision which resulted in the suspension of her license.

Section 4-183(j) requires prejudice to the appellant’s substantial rights before a court may reverse an agency decision for unlawful procedure.

Carreira v. Region 12, Board of Education, No. Cv93 0062534 (Sep. 12, 1994) · filed 1994-09-12(j)

However, General Statutes § 4-183 (j), in pertinent part, provides: "The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that the substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced ... (3) made upon unlawful procedure . . . ." (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 4-183 (j). ... The IHB's decision that the Board's procedural errors were not prejudicial to the plaintiff is adequately supported by the record.

Section 4-183(j) permits reversal for a procedural irregularity only when it prejudices the appealing person's substantial rights.

Plourde v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv930704781 (Jan. 19, 1995) · filed 1995-01-19(j)

Under General Statutes § 4-183 (j), a procedural irregularity does not provide a basis for reversing an administrative decision unless "substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced." The plaintiff in this case has not demonstrated any such prejudice resulting from the lack of a signed copy of the hearing officer's decision.

Section 4-183(g) permits reversal or modification for a procedural irregularity only when it prejudices the appellant's substantial rights.

Dragan v. Conn. Med. Examining Bd., No. Cv950312176s (May 22, 1995) · filed 1995-05-22(g)

A reversal or modification of the Board's final decision is warranted only if the court finds that "substantial rights" of the plaintiff were prejudiced by such a procedural irregularity. General Statutes § 4-183 (g).

Section 4-183 permits reversal for an agency error only when the error prejudices the appellant's substantial rights.

Dinello v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 94 070 52 06 (Aug. 2, 1995) · filed 1995-08-02(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 provides that the court may reverse the agency's decision only if "substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced" by an error of law or procedure. Since there was ample evidence in this case, independent of the engine noise evidence, to justify the stop, the hearing officer's refusal to accept evidence of that noise did not significantly prejudice the plaintiff.

Section 4-183(j) requires prejudice to an appellant’s substantial rights before a court may reverse an agency decision for a procedural defect.

Bona v. Freedom of Information Commission, No. Cv 940123208s (Aug. 10, 1995) · filed 1995-08-10(j)

The statute requires prejudice for reversal. Neither of the plaintiffs has alleged, identified or argued any specific prejudice which resulted from the deficiencies in the Complaint.

Section 4-183(j) requires a court to affirm an agency decision unless the appellant's substantial rights were prejudiced.

James v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 940705377 (Aug. 23, 1995) · filed 1995-08-23(j)

General statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that "The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced." (Emphasis added.) In the present case, the court cannot find that substantial rights of the plaintiff were prejudiced by the failure of the police to furnish the tape of the telephone call in question.

Section 4-183(j) requires an appellant to show that an agency's error prejudiced the appellant's substantial rights.

McBrearity v. Connecticut Chro, No. Cv 95 0067609 (Sep. 19, 1995) · filed 1995-09-19(j)

Moreover, the plaintiff in this appeal is required to prove that the action of the CHRO prejudiced her rights. This requirement is announced in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183 (j): "The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless . . . substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced. . . ."

Section 4-183(j) requires an appellant seeking reversal for defective notice to show that the defect substantially prejudiced the appellant's rights.

Powers v. Board of Chiropractic Exam., No. Cv 94 054 20 09 (Nov. 21, 1995) · filed 1995-11-21(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides that the court may reverse an agency decision on constitutional grounds only if "substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced." Even if the notice is defective, therefore, the plaintiff must establish that the defect created substantial prejudice to him in the conduct of the proceedings.

Section 4-183(j) requires a person challenging an agency decision for a procedural error to show material prejudice before the court may reverse it.

Franklin v. Gaming Policy Board, No. Cv94-0048040 (Jan. 17, 1996) · filed 1996-01-17(j)

In order for a procedural deficiency to be the basis for reversing an agency decision, the person affected must show that he "suffer(ed) material prejudice as a result of (it)." CT Page 1093 Jutkowitz v. Department of Health Services, 220 Conn. 86 , 94 (1991), In the present case, the plaintiff can demonstrate no material prejudice as result of the division's failure to comply with the spirit and letter of the regulations governing compliance conferences.

Section 4-183(j) requires an appellant to show material prejudice from an agency's procedural error before a court can reverse the agency's decision.

Common Coun. of Middletown v. F.O.I.C., No. Cv 95 007 44 06 (Jan. 31, 1996) · filed 1996-01-31(j)

General Statutes § 4-183 (j) provides, in part, that "(t)he court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are . . . (3) made upon unlawful procedure [or] . . . (4) affected by other error of law. . . ." (Emphasis added.) ... In summary, the council never demonstrated any material prejudice as a result of the procedure followed by the commission.