Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183

A fee waiver application tolls both the filing and service deadlines for an administrative appeal.

Lucarelli v. Freedom of Info. Comm., No. Cv 93 006 89 88 (Jan. 27, 1995) · filed 1995-01-27(m)

It follows that an application for a waiver of fees, which includes sheriff's fees, tolls not only the time for filing the appeal in court but also tolls the time for service of the appeal on the defendants.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be served and filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; filing late deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

A.F.S.C.M.E. v. Board of Labor Rel., No. Cv 94 053 44 89 (Feb. 1, 1995) · filed 1995-02-01(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides that an appeal of an administrative decision must be served on all parties of record and filed in the superior court "(w)ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision . . . or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under (§ 4-180 )." Failure to file an appeal within the forty-five day time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. ... The appeal was filed on February 15, 1994, one day late. Given these facts, the court must, regrettably, determine that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' appeal The defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

An appeal under § 4-183 is timely when filed on the next business day if its forty-five-day filing deadline falls while the clerk's office is closed.

Procopek v. Comm. of Social Services, No. Cv 94 053 62 00 (May 23, 1995) · filed 1995-05-23

Accordingly, the court and the defendant questioned the court's jurisdiction under General Statutes § 4-183 . That statute requires that appeals be filed within forty-five days after the mailing of the decision. After considering the issue, however, the court concludes that the appeal was timely filed. ... General Statutes § 51-347c provides that if the last day for filing a matter in court falls on a day when the clerk's office is closed, the last day for filing shall instead be the next business day. In this case, the plaintiff filed the appeal on the next business day, Monday, April 4, 1994, and it was, accordingly, timely.

An oral final agency decision can trigger § 4-183(c)'s forty-five day period for filing an administrative appeal.

Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Windsor Hall Rest Home · filed 1995-02-07(c)

We conclude that this oral decision of the commission’s presiding officer was the “final decision” of the commission that triggered the forty-five day appeal period under the UAPA, and that neither the statutes nor the regulations regarding the commission take precedence over the UAPA by clearly mandating a written decision to trigger the right to appeal.

When a complainant timely requests reconsideration of a CHRO finding of no reasonable cause, the denial of reconsideration is the final decision that starts § 4-183's 45-day appeal period.

Hackett v. Chro, No. 0122312 (Mar. 29, 1995) · filed 1995-03-29(c)

Accordingly, based on the facts of-the present case, the denial of the request for reconsideration was the CHRO's final decision for the purposes of General Statutes § 4-183 , rather than the investigator's finding of no reasonable cause. Therefore, the CHRO's final decision on the plaintiff's complaint was the July 11, 1994 denial of the request for reconsideration. Because the present appeal was filed within 45 days of this date, this court finds that this appeal was filed in accordance with the 45 day deadline of General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183(a) allows an appeal from a final agency decision; a hearing held when no statute requires one does not create an appealable final decision.

Dadiskos v. Connecticut Real Estate Commission · filed 1995-05-09(a)

Therefore, there was no final decision from which the plaintiff had a right to appeal pursuant to § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183's filing deadline was satisfied when the clerk received the appeal and a check for the required fee within forty-five days, despite delaying the filing stamp while the appellant corrected the check's payee.

Wight v. Commissioner of Social Serv., No. Cv 94 053 65 53 (Apr. 25, 1995) · filed 1995-04-25

Although such factors are important, they should not be allowed to create a legal obstacle to the filing of an appeal under the provisions of General Statutes § 4-183 . Under the particular circumstances of this case, the court finds that the plaintiff satisfied all legal requirements for filing her appeal on April 7, 1994, and that the necessary papers and fee were in the hands of the clerk of the court on that date. Accordingly, the court concludes that the appeal was filed on that date, thereby complying with the time requirements of the statute.

Section 4-183(f) provides that filing an administrative appeal does not itself stay enforcement of the agency decision.

Madison Hills Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Madison · filed 1995-06-13(f)

Under General Statutes § 4-183 (f), the administrative appeals did not of themselves stay the enforcement of the agency decision.

Section 4-183’s forty-five-day appeal period begins when the CHRO denies a timely request for reconsideration of a no-reasonable-cause finding.

Studwell v. Chro, No. 122314 (Jul. 11, 1995) · filed 1995-07-11

In the present case, the plaintiff filed his appeal within forty-five days of the July 12, 1994 (notice of) denial of the request for reconsideration. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; a late filing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Bloomfield Town Manager v. Panke, No. Cv 94 054 27 94 (Jul. 26, 1995) · filed 1995-07-26(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides that an appeal of an administrative decision must be served on all parties of record and filed in the superior court "(w)ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision . . . or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under (§ 4-180 )." Failure to file an appeal within the forty-five day time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the agency mails its final decision; a late filing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Bloomfield Town Manager v. Panke, No. Cv 94 054 27 95 (Jul. 26, 1995) · filed 1995-07-26(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides that an appeal of an administrative decision must be served on all parties of record and filed in the superior court "(w)ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision . . . or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under (§ 4-180 )." ... In the present case, as indicated, the appeal was filed in this court on the fifty-fourth day after the mailing of the agency's decision. That was beyond the time permitted by the statute and, therefore, the court lacks subject matter CT Page 7652 jurisdiction.

Section 4-183 requires an aggrieved party to file a petition in Superior Court within forty-five days after notice of a final decision is mailed.

Cracco v. Freedom of Info. Commission, No. Cv-94-0705369-S (Aug. 18, 1995) · filed 1995-08-18

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183 requires an aggrieved party taking an appeal from a final decision to file a petition in the Superior Court within forty-five days after mailing of the notice of the decision. ... Thus, the appeals are timely filed and served.

The forty-five-day appeal period begins when the agency's final decision is mailed or personally delivered, not on the date the agency makes its decision.

Young v. Commission on Human Rights, No. Cv 32 38 83 (Sep. 10, 1995) · filed 1995-09-10(c)

The date of the CHRO's decision does not trigger the statutory period for serving and filing an appeal, and there is no evidence in the record as to when this final decision was either mailed or personally delivered to the plaintiff. See General Statutes § 4-183 (c).

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be served and filed within forty-five days.

Commission on Hro v. Truelove MacLean, No. 115306 (Jul. 10, 1995) · filed 1995-07-10(c)

The court finds that the appeal in this case was timely served and filed within the forty-five day requirement under § 4-183 (c).

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appellant to serve the agency and file the appeal in Superior Court within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed.

Maurao v. Comm., Dept. of Soc. Ser., No. Cv95 32 39 37 S (Sep. 8, 1995) · filed 1995-09-08(c)

Section 4-183 (c) establishes a two-step procedure for perfecting an administrative appeal. The plaintiff must serve the petition upon the agency and file the appeal in the superior court within forty-five days after the mailing of the final decision.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; a late filing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Rodolfo-Masera v. Comm. of Social Ser., No. Cv 94 054 41 08 (Sep. 13, 1995) · filed 1995-09-13(c)

Failure to file an appeal within the forty-five day time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. ... That was the forty-seventh day after the mailing of the final decision to her, and, accordingly, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over her appeal.

An aggrieved party must appeal a final agency decision under § 4-183 within forty-five days; missing that deadline leaves the court without subject matter jurisdiction over a substitute action.

Londregan v. Freedom of Information Commission, No. 529345 (Feb. 16, 1996) · filed 1996-02-16

The proper course of action would have been for Fromer to appeal from that decision in accordance with the statutory requirements of § 4-183 . Simko v. Zoning Board of Appeals , supra, 206 Conn. 377 . Fromer, however, has failed to file an appeal within the forty-five day limitation period. § 4-183 . Therefore, the present action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed in superior court within 45 days after notice of the final decision; timely service alone does not satisfy the filing deadline.

Grippen v. Bd. of Firearms Permit Exam., No. Cv 95 037 26 09 (Oct. 26, 1995) · filed 1995-10-26(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides that an appeal of an administrative decision must be filed in the superior court "(w)ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision . . . or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under (§ 4-180 )." Failure to file an appeal within the forty-five day time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Association, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission et al , 227 Conn. 848 (1993). This requirement concerning the time for filing the appeal is in addition to the requirement for service of process, so even if the appeal is served within the forty-five day period, as occurred here, it must also be filed in court within that period. Since the appeal was not filed within the statutory time limitation, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; a late filing deprives the Superior Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Crest Pontiac Cad. v. Comm'r of M. v. No. Cv 94 054 18 62 (Nov. 30, 1995) · filed 1995-11-30(c)

That is beyond the forty-five day time limit prescribed by § 4-183 (c). ... Since the appeal was not filed within forty-five days after the mailing of the final decision, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.

Section 4-183(c)'s 45-day period for serving and filing an administrative appeal runs from mailing of the final decision; an appeal cannot be dismissed as untimely when the record does not establish the mailing date.

Martins v. State, Dept. of Consumer Protection, No. 32 19 32 (Dec. 13, 1995) · filed 1995-12-13(c)

This matter is controlled by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, General Statutes § 4-183 (c), which provides, in pertinent part, "[w]ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision under section 4-180 . . . a person appealing as provided in this section shall serve a copy of the appeal on the agency that rendered the final decision . . . and file the appeal with the clerk of the superior court . . . ." (Emphasis added.) ... Therefore, since the existing pleadings do not indicate when the decision was mailed, the court has no basis from which CT Page 13726 to calculate the forty-five (45) day period. Since every presumption is to be indulged in favor of jurisdiction; LeConche v. Elligers, 215 Conn. 701 , 710 ; the court, accordingly, denies the motion to dismiss.

Section 4-183(c)'s forty-five-day appeal period begins when the agency mails its final decision; an earlier mailing by the hearing officer does not start the period if that decision is not yet final.

Ann Howard's Apricots Restaurant, Inc. v. Commission On Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1996-05-28(c)

Our resolution of this issue depends upon which of the two mailings operates as the mailing of the commission’s final decision pursuant to § 4-183 (c). ... We conclude that because the final decision was mailed on September 27, the date when the commission issued its decision, along with the standard cover letter indicating that the decision was final and informing the parties of their appeal rights, the plaintiffs appeal was timely.

Section 4-183(c) requires an appeal from an administrative agency decision to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; a late appeal does not give the court jurisdiction.

Petti v. Commission on Human Rights, No. 130937 (Jul. 30, 1996) · filed 1996-07-30(c)

Appeal to Superior Court from such an administrative agency decision must be taken by law within forty-five days after mailing of the final decision complained about. General Statutes § 4-183 (c). The plaintiff's appeal was not filed with the court until January of 1996, more than six months later, and was therefore untimely to vest jurisdiction in the court.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal within forty-five days after mailing or personal delivery of the final decision; an untimely request for reconsideration does not extend that jurisdictional deadline.

Hendrix v. Comm. on Human Rights Opp., No. Cv 96 056 02 26 (Aug. 28, 1996) · filed 1996-08-28(c)

Failure to file an appeal' within the forty-five day time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. ... Since he did not comply with § 46a-83 (e), that statute may not be used to extend the time limit imposed by the appeals statute, § 4-183 .

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed or delivered; a reconsideration request does not extend that deadline, and late filing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

R L Auto Ser. v. Dept. of Motor Veh., No. Cv 95 037 68 71 (Aug. 29, 1996) · filed 1996-08-29(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides that a copy of an appeal of an administrative decision must be served on all parties of record and filed in the superior court "(w)ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision . . . or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under (§ 4-180 )." Failure to file an appeal within the forty-five day time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Association, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission et al, 227 Conn. 848 (1993). A request for reconsideration of a final decision does not extend the time limit. ... In the present case, the plaintiffs' petition and the court's record establish that the appeal was filed in the court on the fifty-fourth day after the "issuance" of the department's final decision. On the basis of that fact and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the court infers that the appeal was filed more than forty-five days after the department mailed the decision to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal under the rule of the Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Association case, supra. The appeal is dismissed.

Section 4-183(c) requires an appeal to be filed within forty-five days after a final agency decision is mailed; an unexercised opportunity to request reconsideration does not extend that deadline.

Welch v. Commission on Human Rights Opp., No. Cv 960560261 (Oct. 2, 1996) · filed 1996-10-02(c)

These provisions of the decision clearly indicate that it is a final decision and that an appeal to the court in lieu of a request for reconsideration by the commission must comply with the applicable statute, which is § 4-183 (c). Since the appeal was not filed within the time prescribed by law, the court lacks jurisdiction over it.

Subsection (c) requires an administrative appeal to be served and filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed.

Rumbin v. Thomas, No. Cv. 95-0374462 (Aug. 27, 1996) · filed 1996-08-27(c)

On its face, § 4-183 (c) requires that an administrative appeal brought pursuant to § 4-183 (a) be both served and filed in court within forty-five days of the decision from, which the appeal is taken.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed, and late filing deprives the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Rivera v. Blumenthal, No. Cv 96 056 27 69 (Sep. 16, 1996) · filed 1996-09-16(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides that a copy of an appeal of an administrative decision must be served on all parties of record and filed in the superior court "(w)ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision . . . or, if there is no mailing, within forty-five days after personal delivery of the final decision under (§ 4-180 )." Failure to file an appeal within the forty-five day time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Association Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission et al, 227 Conn. 848 (1993). In the present case, the plaintiff filed his appeal beyond the forty-five day time limit allowed by § 4-183 . The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal, therefore. The appeal is dismissed.

Section 4-183(c)'s forty-five-day filing period runs from the mailing of the final decision, not receipt of notice.

Wise v. Thomas, No. Cv95-0552066 (Feb. 5, 1997) · filed 1997-02-05(c)

The plain inescapable language of 4-183 (c) indicates that the forty-five days runs from the date of mailing, not receipt of notice.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal within forty-five days of the final decision's mailing, or personal delivery if it was not mailed; missing that deadline deprives the superior court of jurisdiction.

Toomey v. Reider, No. 96 134029 (Feb. 21, 1997) · filed 1997-02-21(c)

The failure of a party to file an administrative appeal under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act within the forty-five days required by § 4-183 (c) deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed in Superior Court within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; an untimely filing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Presutti v. Health Department, No. Cv 96 056 31 57 (Nov. 18, 1996) · filed 1996-11-18(c)

Since the plaintiff did not file the appeal in the court within the time prescribed by 21 4-183 (c), the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Section 4-183(c)’s forty-five-day filing period is not tolled by an agency’s failure to follow the mailing requirements of § 4-180(c) when the parties receive timely actual notice.

Crest Pontiac Cadillac, Inc. v. Hadley · filed 1996-12-10(c)

Section 4-183 (c) does not state that the mailing provisions of § 4-180 (c) must be followed strictly, nor does it contain any language that would indicate a tolling of the statutory time for appeal if those provisions are not followed.

Section 4-183(c) requires service of an administrative appeal within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed.

State v. State, No. Cv 95 57527 S (Dec. 16, 1996) · filed 1996-12-16(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 provides that "[w]ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision under 4-180 . . . a person appealing as provided in this section shall serve a copy of the appeal on the agency that rendered the final decision at its office or at the office of the attorney general in Hartford . . . ." General Statutes § 4-183 (c). The final decision was rendered on January 19, 1995. The sheriff's return shows that service occurred on March 3, 1995. Therefore service is timely.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed or personally delivered; a late filing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Hunter's Ambulance v. Off. of Em. Serv., No. Cv 97 056 73 01 (Jan. 31, 1997) · filed 1997-01-31(c)

Failure to file an appeal within the forty-five day time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be served and filed within forty-five days; missing that deadline deprives the Superior Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Louis v. Commission of Human Rights, No. Cv96 0154643 S (Jun. 3, 1997) · filed 1997-05-28(c)

Even assuming that the plaintiff's request for reconsideration was timely, and, therefore, that the relevant date from which to measure the appeal period is July 31, 1996, the plaintiff's appeal is untimely because it was not served and filed within forty-five days of July 31, 1996. Failure to serve and file an administrative appeal within the forty-five day period provided in General Statutes § 4-183 (c) deprives the Superior Court of subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.

Section 4-183(c) gives a party forty-five days to appeal an administrative decision to the Superior Court.

Town of Bloomfield v. St. Bd. of Labor, No. Cv Hhd 705617 S (May 30, 1997) · filed 1997-05-30(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) mandates a forty-five day statute of limitations to appeal an administrative decision to the superior court. In the present case, the final decision was rendered on November 30, 1994. Service occurred on January 12, 1995. Therefore, since only forty-three days have passed, the plaintiff's appeal is timely.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; a late filing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Ward v. Thomas, No. Hhd Cv96-0563259 S (Jun. 17, 1997) · filed 1997-06-17(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides that an appeal must be filed in the Superior Court "[w]ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision. . . ." The failure to file an appeal within the forty-five days time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; an untimely filing deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Faulborn-Skomars v. Chro, No. Cv 96 056 66 28 (May 1, 1997) · filed 1997-05-01(c)

Since the appeal was not filed within the forty-five day time limit prescribed by § 4-183 (c), the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal and it must be dismissed.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the agency mails its final decision.

Matsumoto v. Martinez, No. 399587 (Dec. 17, 1997) · filed 1997-12-17(c)

The appeal was filed on May 1, 1997, and therefore, it was not filed within forty-five days of the CHRO's final decision. Thus, the plaintiff failed to satisfy section 4-183 (c).

Section 4-183 requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the decision is mailed.

Gasoline Automotive v. State, Freedom, No. Cv97 0568699 (Nov. 25, 1997) · filed 1997-11-25

General Statutes § 4-183 requires that administrative appeals be filed within forty-five days after the mailing of the decision. Our Supreme Court in Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Assn. Inc. v. FOIC, 227 Conn. 848 , 852-53 (1993), determined that the failure or an appellant to both serve the appeal and file it within the forty-five days deprived the Superior Court of jurisdiction. The appeal is untimely and is dismissed.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed and served within 45 days after mailing of the agency's final decision; missing that deadline deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Jeffreys v. Comm. on Hum. Rights Opps., No. Cv97-014068 (Mar. 10, 1998) · filed 1998-03-10(c)

Pursuant to § 4-183 (c), the plaintiff was required to file and serve the appeal "[w]ithin 45 days after mailing of the final decision." ... For these reasons, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's appeal because of the plaintiff's failure to comply with General Statutes § 4-183 (c).

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be brought within 45 days of the final decision.

Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, No. Cv97 0157581-S (Mar. 17, 1998) · filed 1998-03-17(c)

The Court thus concludes that the plaintiff's appeal on the issue of the denial of intervention was untimely. General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides that an administrative appeal must be brought within 45 days of the final decision. Here the appeal was brought in March, 1997, clearly beyond this deadline.

Section 4-183(c) allows a person to appeal a final agency decision within forty-five days after it is mailed.

Gillogly v. Comm., Dmv, No. Cv 97 0059330 (May 1, 1998) · filed 1998-05-01(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides that a person may appeal a final decision of an agency within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed. ... In the present case, the final decision of the commissioner was rendered on July 9, 1997, and the plaintiff filed this appeal on July 28, 1997. The defendant was served on July 17, 1997. Consequently, the plaintiff has filed this action within the time limit prescribed by General Statutes § 4-183 (c).

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be commenced within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; the deadline is jurisdictional.

Chotkowski v. State, Emp. Review Board, No. Cv98 0489392 (Nov. 24, 1998) · filed 1998-11-24(c)

Section 4-183 (c) of the UAPA requires that appeals filed under the UAPA be commenced within forty-five days of the mailing of the final decision. ... The forty-five day filing requirement of § 4-183 (c) is just such a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.

Section 4-183(c) requires an appeal to be filed with the Superior Court within forty-five days of the final decision; that deadline also binds an interested person who was not a party to the agency proceeding.

Brown v. Rocque, No. Cv 98 65924 S (Jun. 22, 1998) · filed 1998-06-22(c)

As an interested person he may have a right to appeal if he has "standing", which does not depend upon party status, but he is still bound by the forty-five day provision in the same fashion as would be a "party" to the proceedings.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appellant to serve the appeal within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed and to file it with the Superior Court.

City of New Haven v. State, No. Cv 90-0307407s (Sep. 10, 1998) · filed 1998-09-10(c)

"Within forty-five days after mailing of the final decision under section 4-180 . . . a person appealing . . . shall serve a copy of the appeal on the agency that rendered the final decision is office or at the office of the attorney general in Hartford and file the appeal with the clerk of the superior court . . . for the judicial district wherein the person appealing resides." General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 4-183 (c). ... It is therefore found that the appeal was commenced in a timely manner by service of process upon the proper parties.

Section 4-183 gives a party forty-five days to appeal a contested case decision to the Superior Court.

Epstein v. Kupchunos, No. Cv96 0557888 (Oct. 13, 1998) · filed 1998-10-13(c)

He would, therefore, be entitled to appeal the decision to the Superior Court under § 4-183 . He did not, however, file an appeal, even though the language of the allegations reflects the standard provided for judicial review of the decision under § 4-183 (j)(5) and (6). Moreover, the forty-five day appeal period set forth in § 4-183 (c) has long since passed, the plaintiff having been notified of the sheriff's decision on July 2, 1995, but he did not initiate this action until February 16, 1996.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the agency mails its final decision; paying the entry fee after that period does not make the appeal timely.

Boccuzzi v. Martin, No. Cv98 0164273 S (Sep. 11, 1998) · filed 1998-09-11(c)

Rather, it is Boccuzzi's failure to pay the entry fee before the 45 day appeal period ended that effects the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the present appeal. ... Boccuzzi's appeal was not formally filed until March 9, 1998, which was beyond the 45 day period permitted by § 4-183 (c) for filing administrative appeals.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the agency mails its final decision; the deadline is jurisdictional.

Hefti v. Comm. on Human Rights Opp., No. Cv98 0579540 (Oct. 19, 1998) · filed 1998-10-19(c)

Section 4-183 (c) requires that appeals filed under the UAPA be filed within forty-five days of the mailing of the final decision by the agency. ... The forty-five day filing requirement of § 4-183 (c) is just such a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed and served within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; an untimely appeal leaves the Superior Court without jurisdiction.

Jeffreys v. Human Rights Opp. Comm., No. Cv 99-0493039 (Feb. 4, 1999) · filed 1999-02-04(c)

Either date would be untimely under General Statutes § 4-183 (c). ... Accordingly, the court is without jurisdiction over the appeal and thus is unable to address the plaintiff's motion for default.

Section 4-183 requires an appeal from the Freedom of Information Commission to be brought within 45 days after the final decision is mailed.

Croughwell v. Freedom of Information Comm., No. Cv98 0492638 (May 7, 1999) · filed 1999-05-07

Pursuant to General Statutes § 1-21i (d), appeals from the FOIC are governed by General Statutes § 4-183 , which provides that an appeal must be brought within 45 days after the mailing of the final decision.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be served and filed within forty-five days after the agency mails its final decision.

Eastern Conn. Regional W. v. Conn. Dpuc, No. Cv 97-0065168 S (Jul. 16, 1999) · filed 1999-07-16(c)

In compliance with General Statutes § 4-183 (c), the plaintiff served process on the DPUC, as well as the OCC, on October 16, 1997; (Sheriff's Return); and filed the appeal with the clerk of the Superior Court on October 16, 1997. These steps were taken within forty-five days after the mailing of the DPUC's final decision on September 3, 1997, as required by § 4-183 (c). This appeal is therefore timely.

Section 4-183 requires an appeal from the denial of intervention as a matter of right within forty-five days; an untimely appeal must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission · filed 1999-11-09(c)

Pursuant to § 4-183, the plaintiff had forty-five days to appeal from the commission’s decision denying him intervenor status. This he failed to do. Because the plaintiff failed to file a timely appeal, the court properly dismissed the appeal as to that issue for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days, and the deadline is jurisdictional.

Hefti v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 2001-01-02(c)

The time limitations of § 4-183, under which the plaintiff would bring her appeal, are not merely procedural limits but are essential parts of the remedy and are mandatory.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be served and filed within forty-five days, while subsection (m) tolls that period while a fee waiver application is pending.

Crim v. Commission on Human Rights Opp., No. 431931 (Jun. 28, 2000) · filed 2000-06-28(c)

This method of service is appropriate pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (c) (1). ... Thus, as of October 18, 1999, the plaintiff had satisfied all the requirements for filing an administrative appeal. The appeal was timely filed on that date and the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(m) tolls the appeal deadline for a fee waiver only if the waiver is filed with the court within the time allowed to appeal.

Morrison v. Dept. of Public Utility, No. Cv 00 050 23 62 (Oct. 17, 2000) · filed 2000-10-17(m)

The fee waiver must be filed with the court within the time perimeters for taking the appeal. The file indicates that the fee waiver was filed with the court on April 24, 2000 beyond the forty-five day time limitation. Since the fee waiver was not timely filed, the tolling provision under § 4-183 (m) cannot occur.

Section 4-183(c) requires an appeal from denial of intervention in a State Traffic Commission proceeding to be filed within forty-five days of the denial; late filing deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Hutchings v. State Traffic Commn., No. X01 Cv 99 0160453s (Sep. 22, 2000) · filed 2000-09-22(c)

Connecticut General Statutes § 4-183 (c), which applies to decisions by the Commission; Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, 55 Conn. App. 679 , 682 , cert. granted, 252 Conn. 943 (2000); provides that within forty-five days after mailing of the final decision, a party seeking to appeal that decision "shall serve a copy of the appeal on the agency that rendered the final decision at its office or at the office of the Attorney General in Hartford and file the appeal with the clerk of the superior court . . ." ... The controlling precedent of Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, supra, 55 Conn. App. 679 , however, compels this court to find that the plaintiffs' administrative appeal from denial of their application to intervene in the Commission's proceedings was untimely, and this court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear its administrative appeal.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the agency mails its final decision.

Cox Cable Adv. Coun. v. Pub. Ut. Con., No. Cv 00 0500103s (Nov. 17, 2000) · filed 2000-11-17(c)

The amended complaint cannot be considered by the court, however, as it was filed more than forty-five days beyond the mailing of the DPUC final decision. ... There the original action was jurisdictionally defective and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint as an administrative appeal within the forty-five day time period of § 4-183 (c).

Section 4-183(c) gives a party forty-five days to file and serve an administrative appeal, and the time limit is jurisdictional.

Southern New England T. v. Conn. Dpuc, No. Cv 00 0502770s (Jan. 3, 2001) · filed 2001-01-03(c)

Under the UAPA as revised in 1988, a party has forty-five days to file .and serve an administrative appeal. General Statutes § 4-183 (c). ... The forty-five day limit is jurisdictional. CHRO v. Windsor Hall Rest Home , 232 Conn. 181 (1995); Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Assn., Inc. v. FOIC , 227 Conn. 848 (1993).

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal within forty-five days of the final decision; a motion to reopen does not extend that deadline.

McAllister v. State Insurance Department, No. Cv 01 0506339s (Apr. 26, 2001) · filed 2001-04-26(c)

The subsequent motion to reopen did not change the finality of the Commissioner's default judgment and order of October 26, 2000. Since the plaintiffs did not appeal within the statutorily-set forty-five day period; General Statutes § 4-183 (c); the court is without jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' appeal from the order revoking the licenses.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed.

Coalition, Save Horsebarn H. v. F.O.I.C., No. Cv00 049 91 78 (Jul. 9, 2001) · filed 2001-07-09(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) requires that a party appeal within forty-five days after the mailing of the final decision. The final decision in this case was mailed on November 3, 1999 (ROR, p. 125), and the plaintiffs filed this appeal on December 6, 1999, well within the statutory limit.

Section 4-183(c) gives an appellant forty-five days after mailing of the final decision to serve the agency and listed parties and file the appeal with the court.

West Broad Street v. Stamford Zba, No. Cv99 0174816 (Feb. 14, 2001) · filed 2001-02-14(c)

A party bringing an appeal then has forty-five days after the mailing of the final decision to serve a copy of the appeal on the agency rendering the decision, file the appeal with the court, and serve a copy on each party listed in the final decision. See General Statutes § 4-183 (c).

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed after the final decision is mailed; an appeal filed before the decision does not give the court subject matter jurisdiction.

Flanagan v. Commission on Human Rights and Opp., No. 443641 (Feb. 22, 2001) · filed 2001-02-22(c)

The statute governing the present case provides that an administrative appeal may be filed only "[w]ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183 (c). ... The plaintiff here has failed to so comply because he did not file his appeal after the administrative decision complained of in the second count of his amended complaint. His failure deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear that count.

Section 4-183 requires exhaustion of administrative remedies and a final decision for an ordinary appeal; an appeal of a preliminary ruling requires a showing that postponement would leave an inadequate remedy.

Miller's Pond Co. v. Rocque, No. Cv 99 049 93 39 (Apr. 3, 2001) · filed 2001-04-03(a), (b)

Accordingly, the plaintiff also fails to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of § 4-183 (a). ... Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements of § 4-183 (b) and demonstrate that the postponement of the appeal would result in an inadequate remedy. As the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements of General Statutes § 4-183 (a) or (b), this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Section 4-183(c) requires an appellant to serve the agency and file the appeal in Superior Court within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed.

Dexter v. Wilson-Coker, No. Cv 00 0503711s (Apr. 27, 2001) · filed 2001-04-27(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides, in relevant part: "Within forty-five days after mailing of the final decision under § 4-180 . . . a person appealing . . . shall serve a copy of the appeal on the agency that rendered the final decision . . . and file the appeal with the clerk of the superior court. . . ." ... Thus, this court finds the appeal to be timely.

Section 4-183(c) requires an appellant to file the appeal and serve the agency within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed.

Martinez v. O'meara, No. Cv 00-499604 (Apr. 30, 2001) · filed 2001-04-30(c)

The court finds that the plaintiff filed a timely appeal and served the appropriate party pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (c).

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after mailing of the agency's final decision.

Sweet v. Freund, No. Cv 00-0503773 (May 30, 2001) · filed 2001-05-30(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides, in relevant part: "Within forty-five days after mailing of the final decision under § 4-180 . . . a person appealing . . . shall serve a copy of the appeal on the agency that rendered the final decision . . . and file the appeal with the clerk of the superior court. . . ." The final decision was mailed on July 7, 2000. The plaintiff filed the appeal with the superior court, judicial district of New Britain on August 10, 2000. The-defendant has not raised a jurisdictional defect. Thus, this court finds the appeal to be timely.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appellant to serve the agency and file the appeal within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed.

Providence Worcester Rr v. Dept. of E.P., No. 000504990s (Jul. 27, 2001) · filed 2001-07-27(c)

The final decision is dated September 6, 2000. The plaintiff filed its appeal in the Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain on October 23, 2000. DEP has not raised a jurisdictional defect. Thus, this court finds the appeal to be timely.

Section 4-183(c) requires service of an administrative appeal within forty-five days; the service deadline is not extended when the last day falls on a Sunday.

Airport Taxi, Company v. State, Dot, No. Cv 01 0508977s (Mar. 20, 2002) · filed 2002-03-20(c)

Administrative appeals have both jurisdictional filing and service time constraints, Basilicato v. Department of Public Utility Control , 197 Conn. 320 , 324 (1985); but only the filing deadline has a non-business-day extension.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be filed within forty-five days after notice of the final decision; an appeal filed sixteen days after notice is timely.

Costa v. Coker, No. Cv 00 0502138s (Aug. 2, 2001) · filed 2001-08-02(c)

Through notice dated April 19, 2000, DSS transmitted the FHO's corrected notice of the reconsidered decision. The plaintiff filed this appeal in the Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain on May 5, 2000. Thus, this court finds the appeal is timely.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be served on the agency and filed in Superior Court within forty-five days after mailing of the final decision.

First Providence Financial Group v. Burke, No. Cv-01-506208s (Nov. 15, 2001) · filed 2001-11-15(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides, in relevant part, that "[w]ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision under section 4-180 . . . a person appealing . . . shall serve a copy of the appeal on the agency that rendered the final decision . . . and file the appeal with the clerk of the superior court. . . ." The plaintiff claims to have received the Corrected Final Decision dated November 27, 2000 by personal delivery on November 28, 2000. (Plaintiff's Complaint, p. 7.) This appeal was served on the commissioner on January 8, 2001 and was filed with the clerk of the superior court on January 9, 2001. (Marshall's Return of Service.) Consequently, this court finds that this appeal is timely and that this court has jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be served and filed within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; the deadline is jurisdictional and mandatory.

Fink v. Department, Consumer Prot., No. Cv 01-0509289 S (Nov. 5, 2001) · filed 2001-11-05(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) requires an appealing party both to serve and to file an administrative appeal "[w]ithin forty-five days after mailing of the final decision . . . See Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Association, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 227 Conn. 848 , 633 A.2d 305 (1993). This time limit is jurisdictional and mandatory.

Section 4-183(c) permits an appeal filed within forty-five days of a final agency dismissal to challenge an earlier partial dismissal ruling.

Commission on Human Rt. v. Cheshire Be., No. Cv 00-0503032 S (Dec. 13, 2001) · filed 2001-12-13(c)

The Board next argues that CHRO should have filed its appeal within forty-five days of the July 15, 1999 decision on the first motion to dismiss rather than wait and file, as it did, within the forty-five day period following the May 31, 2000 decision on the second motion to dismiss. See General Statutes § 4-183 (c). The court rejects this argument. ... Moreover, an appeal after the decision on the first motion to dismiss would have been interlocutory and premature. ... As it turned out, the Board filed a second motion to dismiss, the referee granted it, and CHRO has brought one appeal challenging both rulings. That procedure was the proper one to follow.

A party’s failure to file a timely appeal under § 4-183 makes the agency’s findings and conclusions final and bars review of their merits in a later enforcement action.

Commissioner of Banking v. Haynes · filed 2003-05-20(c)

Upon the landlord’s failure to file a timely appeal, the commissioner’s findings and conclusions became final, binding and not subject to review. See General Statutes § 4-183.

Section 4-183(c) requires an IDEA appeal to be filed within 45 days after the hearing officer’s final decision is mailed because reconsideration is unavailable in IDEA cases.

Brennan v. Regional School District No. 1 Board of Education · filed 2008-01-04(c)

Thus, unless reconsideration is sought pursuant to Conn. GemStat. § 4-181a, an appeal from the hearing officer’s decision must be filed within 45 days of the mailing of the final decision. In practice, this means that an IDEA appeal must always be filed within 45 days, as reconsideration pursuant to Section 4-181a is impossible in an IDEA case.

Section 4-183(c) requires both service on the agency and filing in Superior Court within forty-five days; failure to file on time deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Searles v. Department of Social Services · filed 2006-07-11(c)

Section 4-183 (c) requires that both service on the agency and the filing of the appeal with the Superior Court occur within the forty-five day period. The plaintiff did not comply with the statute. The court, therefore, was without jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs appeal from the September 8, 2004 decision.

An administrative appeal must be filed with the Superior Court within forty-five days after the agency mails its final decision; an untimely filing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Pine v. Department of Public Health · filed 2007-03-27(c)

The plaintiffs failed to comply with the jurisdictional time limitation set forth in § 4-183 (c). Accordingly, although the court properly rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ administrative appeal, the appeal should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction rather than on the substantive merits of the case.

An administrative appeal filed after the forty-five day deadline following denial of reconsideration leaves the Superior Court without subject matter jurisdiction.

Lawson v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2012-04-03(c)(2)

We therefore cannot conclude that the court’s finding that the plaintiff’s appeal was filed untimely was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs appeal.

Section 4-183(c) requires service of an administrative appeal on the agency within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; late service deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Godaire v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 2013-04-02(c)

Here, because it is conceded that the plaintiff failed to serve the commission with his administrative appeal until fifty-three days after the appealed from final decision was mailed to him, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over that appeal. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs appeal.

Section 4-183 (c)’s forty-five day period for serving an administrative appeal begins when the agency mails notice of its final decision.

Connelly v. Commissioner of Correction · filed 2014-04-29(c)

Although the plaintiff argues that an alleged delay by prison officials in delivering that notice to him rendered the date of mailing ‘‘mean- ingless,’’ it remains that the forty-five day time period set forth in § 4-183 (c) is triggered by the mailing of notice, not receipt thereof.

Section 4-183(c)(3)’s forty-five-day appeal period applied when the agency acted within its reconsideration window and appeared to reconsider a petition that had already been denied by operation of law.

Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission · filed 2021-05-20(c)(3)

Because the plaintiffs’ appeal was timely under § 4-183 (c) (3), we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to that court for a resolution of the merits of the plaintiffs’ administrative appeal.

Section 4-183(c)(1) supplies a 45-day deadline for appealing a Connecticut IDEA hearing officer’s decision; filing the federal complaint tolls that period.

Dervishi v. Stamford Board of Education · filed 2022-03-25(c)(1)

Although Connecticut law supplies the forty-five-day limitations period, federal law dictates the procedural requirements Dervishi must satisfy to toll the limitations period. Because a limitations period is tolled under federal law when a complaint is filed, the limitation period was tolled on September 8, 2021, when Dervishi filed her complaint in federal district court. Accordingly, she filed her federal complaint within forty-five days of the hearing officer’s decision.

Section 4-183 sets deadlines for appealing a final agency decision to the Superior Court.

Severino v. Rovella · filed 2024-01-12

Additionally, although Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-32b provides that the “person aggrieved by the decision of the board may appeal therefrom in accordance with the provisions of section 4-183[,]” all deadlines by which Chief of Police Spagnolo could have brought appeal have long passed.

Section 4-183 (j) permits a court to remand an administrative appeal after sustaining the appeal on a statutory ground of prejudice.

Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Dance Right, LLC · filed 2025-01-07(j)

Here, the court did not sustain the appeal or make a finding that the commission was prejudiced for one of the reasons delineated in § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(e) permits the court to remand an administrative appeal before final judgment when an incomprehensible agency record prevents meaningful review.

Gervasoni v. McGrath · filed 1980-04-17(e)

There is no reason why the same power should not exist prior to final judgment. The UAPA never expressly limits the power of remand to a final judgment. The clear language of § 4-183 (e) states that the court may order the agency to take additional evidence and case law has said that this power may he exercised by remand.

Section 4-183(g) ordinarily requires remand when an agency decision is set aside for insufficient findings; a court may direct the outcome only when the agency could reasonably reach just one conclusion.

Feinson v. Conservation Commission · filed 1980-04-29(g)

When agency action is overturned, as here, because of invalid or insufficient findings, we have held that a court must ordinarily remand the matter under consideration to the agency for further consideration. ... Because it does not appear as a matter of law that there is only one single conclusion that the commission could reasonably reach, a direct order to the commission is legally unwarranted.

Section 4-183(g) permits a new administrative hearing when the agency has abused its discretion; a remand is improper without such a finding.

Harrison v. Commissioner, Department of Income Maintenance · filed 1987-08-11(g)

The hearing officer’s application of this presumption was therefore erroneous and an abuse of discretion. A new hearing is required. See General Statutes § 4-183 (g).

Subsection (k) permits specific corrective orders, but it did not apply to administrative proceedings begun before its July 1, 1989 effective date.

Dragan v. Connecticut Medical Examining Board · filed 1991-05-21(k)

General Statutes § 4-183 (k) which would allow such an order did not become effective until July 1, 1989. This appeal is controlled by the law applicable at the start of the administrative proceedings which was prior to July 1, 1989.

Section 4-183(k) permits a court to order an application granted when the evidence allows only that conclusion.

Vicino v. Westbrook Zoning Board of Appeals, No. 59025 (Aug. 1, 1991) · filed 1991-08-01(k)

In addition this court orders pursuant to Sec. 4-183 (k) Conn. General Statutes, that the application of the plaintiffs be granted as it appears to be the only conclusion which could have been logically reached based on the evidence before the ZBA.

Under the former § 4-183(g), a court that overturns an agency decision for insufficient findings ordinarily remands for further consideration; it cannot order a particular result when the agency may impose supported conditions.

Strong v. Conservation Commission · filed 1992-08-04(g)

The trial court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 4-183 (g). ... A direct order to the commission is therefore legally unwarranted and the case must be remanded to the commission for further consideration of any conditions that should be attached to the issuance of the permit as supported by evidence in the present record.

Section 4-183(j) allows a court to sustain an administrative appeal and remand for a new hearing when the hearing officer’s exclusion of relevant evidence denies due process.

Coracci v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 1993-09-23(j)

In accordance with § 4-183 (j), the plaintiff’s appeal is sustained and the case is remanded to the department of motor vehicles for a new hearing consistent with this decision.

Section 4-183(j) and (k) permits a court to remand an agency decision for further proceedings when a contrary finding would be clearly erroneous on the existing record.

Dacey v. Comm. on Human Rights Opp., No. Cv 93 052 39 91 (May 13, 1994) · filed 1994-05-13(j) and (k)

Any contrary finding would be clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the case must be remanded to the commission so that it may, on the basis of the present record, determine when the plaintiff would have been hired as a full-time officer and how much back pay she is entitled to receive as a result. General Statutes § 4-183 (j) and (k).

Section 4-183(g) permits a court to modify or remand an agency decision, but remand is required when an invalid condition is integral to the agency’s approval.

Gorman Construction Co. v. Planning & Zoning Commission · filed 1994-07-19(g)

Because, in the present case, the condition was an integral part of the determination and cannot be separated from the approval for the subdivision, a modification of the commission’s order is legally unwarranted.

Section 4-183(k) permits a court that sustains an agency appeal to order a particular agency action when the law requires it.

Crescimanni v. Liquor Control Comm., No. Cv 94 053 69 61 (Oct. 6, 1994) · filed 1994-10-06(k)

Subsection (k) provides, "If a particular agency CT Page 10346 action is required by law, the court, on sustaining the appeal, may render a judgment that modifies the agency decision, orders the particular agency action, or orders the agency to take such action as may be necessary to effect the particular action." ... Since the court has determined that the commissioners' conclusion in that regard was not in accordance with the applicable law, the department has no authority to deny the application. The appeal is sustained, and the case is remanded to the department with instructions to grant the plaintiff's application upon his compliance with all provisions of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to remand an agency decision made upon unlawful procedure.

Starr v. Commissioner, dep't/envt'l Prot., No. Cv94-0535053 (Jan. 18, 1995) · filed 1995-01-18(j)

The court finds that the Commissioner's determination that the plaintiff had not proven that she was an innocent landowner pursuant to § 1(B)(i) of P.A. 93-375 was made upon unlawful procedure. Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j), the court hereby orders a remand for further proceedings on the issue whether the plaintiff's inquiry into the previous uses of the property was "consistent with good commercial or customary practices" such as to entitle her to "innocent landowner" status pursuant to P.A. 93-375(1)(B)(i).

Section 4-183(k) permits the court to remand an administrative appeal to the board with instructions to hear and decide it.

Slattery v. Bd. of Firearms Per. Exmr., No. Cv 0940542471 (Apr. 25, 1995) · filed 1995-04-25(k)

In accordance with General Statutes § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to the board, and the board is instructed to hear and decide the plaintiff's appeal of the refusal of her application for a permit.

Section 4-183(k) permits a court that sustains an administrative appeal to remand the case to the agency for further proceedings.

Office of Cons. Coun. v. Dept., P. U. C., No. Cv 93 053 06 73 (Mar. 7, 1995) · filed 1995-03-07(k)

For the reasons set forth in OCC v. DPUC I , supra, the plaintiff's appeal in this case is sustained. In accordance with General Statutes § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to the department for further proceedings.

Section 4-183(k) permits a court to remand an administrative appeal with directions for further agency proceedings and a new decision.

Lucarelli v. Freedom of Infor. Comm., No. Cv 93 006 89 88 (Mar. 29, 1995) · filed 1995-03-29(k)

Pursuant to subsection (k) of General Statutes § 4-183 , the commission or its delegated hearing officer is ordered to conduct an in camera review of all documents that the defendants withheld under claim of privilege and then to render a new decision on the plaintiff's complaint.

Section 4-183(k) permits remand when an evidentiary error in an administrative proceeding prejudices the appellant's substantial rights.

Zabawar v. Commissioner of Motor Veh., No. Cv940705152 (Mar. 9, 1995) · filed 1995-03-09(k)

Its admission in evidence thus prejudiced substantial rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's appeal is sustained. Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to the department.

Section 4-183(j) makes a remand order in an administrative appeal a final judgment when the underlying agency proceedings began on or after July 1, 1989.

Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection · filed 1995-06-13(j)

First, we must decide whether these administrative appeals are governed by § 4-183 (j), which, since its effective date of July 1,1989, characterizes any remand order in an administrative appeal as a final judgment. ... We conclude that both questions should be answered in the negative and therefore conclude that the trial court did not render final judgments in these cases.

Section 4-183(k) permits a court to remand an administrative appeal with instructions directing the agency to pay benefits.

Jenkins v. Commr. of Social Services, No. Cv 94 036 77 75 (Jul. 24, 1995) · filed 1995-07-24(k)

In accordance with § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to the department with instructions the the department reinstate and pay the plaintiff CCC benefits for the period from June 13, 1994 to July 21, 1994 (ten days after the July 11 notice) and pay her Job Connection benefits commencing July 22, 1994 so long as she continues to be eligible therefor.

Section 4-183(k) permits the court to remand an administrative appeal with instructions to restore a revoked permit after finding an abuse of discretion.

Nicholson v. Bd./firearms Permit Exmr., No. Cv 940541048 (Sep. 28, 1995) · filed 1995-09-28(k)

In accordance with General Statutes § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to the board and the board is instructed to order that the plaintiff's permit be restored in accordance with § 29-32b (b).

Section 4-183 requires the court to sustain an administrative appeal when an agency error substantially prejudices a party and permits remand to the agency.

Commission on Hro v. Met. Dist. Comm., No. Cv 94 053 80 66 (Jul. 30, 1995) · filed 1995-07-30(j), (k)

Since the erroneous ruling placed the burden of persuasion continuously on Genovesi, rather than on the MDC, it was plainly and substantially prejudicial to Genovesi. In accordance with General Statutes § 4-183 (j), the court must sustain the appeal. In accordance with General Statutes § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to the commission.

Section 4-183(k) requires a court to remand for further agency proceedings when the agency’s findings are insufficient and the evidence permits more than one conclusion.

Dufraine v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1996-03-19(k)

Further, because of the possibility of more than one outcome on remand, the trial court impermissibly exceeded its limited scope of review of an administrative decision. General Statutes § 4-183 (k); Newtown v. Keeney, supra, 234 Conn. 321 n.4 (single conclusion of law doctrine has no application where more than one outcome is possible on remand). As we held in Adriani I, supra, 220 Conn. 329 n.21, “when a trial court concludes that an administrative agency has made invalid or insufficient findings, the court must remand the case to the agency for further proceedings if the evidence does not support only one conclusion as a matter of law.”

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to remand an agency decision for further findings when the defect cannot be separated from the approval or corrected by modifying it.

Petrides v. Town of Groton Planning Commission, No. 528734 (Mar. 29, 1996) · filed 1996-03-29(j)

The applicable provisions of General Statutes § 4-183 (g) [now § 4-183 (j)] permit the trial court to affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. ... The court further finds that the water supply and proposed interconnection is an integral part of the re-subdivision's plan for fire protection and potable drinking water, and can not be separated out of the approval or modified by the court. ... Therefore, the court remands the case to the Commission for further clarification and findings of fact with regard to the water interconnection and the likelihood of approval by the appropriate state agencies.

Section 4-183 requires a court to decide the merits of an administrative appeal before ordering a remand when the parties disagree about the remand’s terms.

Laschever v. Conn. Dept. of Social Servs., No. Cv95-0466134 (Apr. 3, 1996) · filed 1996-04-03(h), (j), (k)

Section 4-183 (h) and (j) provide for a "hearing on the merits of the appeal" and specify that the appeal "shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record." Section 4-183 (k) provides that a court on sustaining an appeal "may render a judgment that modifies the agency decision, orders the particular agency action, or orders the agency to take such action as may be necessary to effect the particular action." Nothing in the UAPA authorizes the court to order a remand without addressing the merits of the appeal where the parties are in disagreement as to the terms and conditions of the remand.

Section 4-183(j) makes an administrative remand order a final judgment when the underlying agency proceedings began on or after July 1, 1989.

Dacey v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1996-04-09(j)

Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j), a remand order in an administrative appeal is a final judgment. That provision, however, was enacted in 1988 as an amendment to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, and it applies only in cases where the underlying agency proceedings commenced on or after July 1, 1989.

Section 4-183(k) permits a court to remand an administrative appeal and instruct the agency to vacate part of its decision and issue a new one.

Pizzella v. Plbg. Piping Work Exam. Bd., No. Cv 95 046 54 99 (May 2, 1996) · filed 1996-05-02(k)

Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to the board and the board is instructed to vacate that part of its decision finding the plaintiff guilty of malpractice in performing the repairs on Ross's well and to render a new decision.

Section 4-183(k) permits a court sustaining an administrative appeal to remand the case and order reinstatement of a revoked license.

Lee v. Connecticut Real Estate Com'n, No. Cv 940705180 (Sep. 26, 1996) · filed 1996-09-26(k)

In accordance with the provisions of General Statutes § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to the commission, and the commission is ordered to reinstate the plaintiff's license.

Section 4-183(k) permits a court to remand an administrative appeal for a new agency hearing and decision.

O'Callaghan v. Commissioner of Ss, No. Cv 95 055 24 28 (Jan. 15, 1997) · filed 1997-01-15(k)

The plaintiff's appeal is sustained. Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to the department for a new fair hearing and a new decision consistent with this decision of the court.

Section 4-183(k) authorizes the court to remand a sustained administrative appeal to the agency for further proceedings.

Dunn v. Freedom of Information Comm'n, No. Cv 96 056 09 56 (Jul. 18, 1997) · filed 1997-07-18(k)

The appeal is sustained. Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to the commission.

Section 4-183(k) authorizes a trial court that sustains an appeal to order action required by law.

Auto Placement Center v. East Haven Zba, No. Cv 970567159s (Mar. 6, 1997) · filed 1997-03-06(k)

General Statutes § 4-183 (k) authorizes the trial court upon sustaining an appeal to authorize action required by law.

Section 4-183 permits a court to sustain an administrative appeal and remand for a new hearing when an evidentiary ruling materially prejudices the appellant.

Couturier v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv96-0566260 (Mar. 11, 1997) · filed 1997-03-11(j), (k)

It follows that the hearing officer's ruling materially prejudiced the plaintiff. In accordance with General Statutes §§ 4-183 (j) and (k), the plaintiff's appeal is sustained and the case is remanded to the department of motor vehicles for a new hearing.

Section 4-183 treats a remand as a final judgment even when the agency must take additional evidence.

Shew v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1997-04-01(l)

Notwithstanding the fact that the remand requires the commission to take additional evidence, the trial court’s judgment is a final judgment under General Statutes § 4-183 Q) of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, which provides that “[f]or the purposes of this section, a remand is a final judgment.”

Section 4-183 allows a court to sustain an administrative appeal and remand the case to the agency for a new hearing.

Vigneri v. Board of Firearms Per. Exmr., No. Cv 96 056 04 86 (Apr. 22, 1997) · filed 1997-04-22(j), (k)

Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j), the appeal is sustained. Pursuant to § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to the board. The board is ordered to hold a new hearing at which the plaintiff shall be allowed to present relevant testimony and other evidence in her behalf, consistent with the principles set forth in this decision.

Section 4-183(j) and (k) permit a court to sustain an administrative appeal and remand the case for a new hearing.

Bostrom v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 960564639 (May 1, 1997) · filed 1997-05-01(j) and (k)

The appeal is sustained and the case is remanded to the department pursuant to General Statutes §§ 4-183 (j) and (k) for a new hearing to be conducted in a manner consistent with CT Page 4957 this decision of the court.

Section 4-183(j) permits a court to remand an agency decision for further findings on the existing record when a required finding is missing.

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

Pursuant to § 4-183 (j) this case is remanded to the department for further proceedings on the existing record to state its finding as to whether the language used by the plaintiff adversely impacted the resident Tschauder.

Section 4-183(k) permits a court to sustain an administrative appeal and remand the matter for the agency to vacate its order and findings.

State v. Freedom of Information Comm., No. Cv 98 0492649s (Oct. 12, 1999) · filed 1999-10-12(k)

The appeal is sustained and the matter is remanded to the Commission for the Commission shall vacate its disclosure order and findings that the Department of Public Health violated the Freedom of Information Act. So ordered, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (k).

Section 4-183 permits remand to the agency when a missing hearing transcript prevents meaningful judicial review.

Johnston v. Salinas · filed 2000-02-29(j)

We conclude that a remand to the commissioner is the only method by which the trial court could have assured meaningful review.

Section 4-183 permits a court to remand an administrative appeal to complete the agency record before final judgment, even though the court has not sustained the appeal.

Lisee v. Ct. Comm. Human Rts. and Opps., No. Cv 99 0494680s (Mar. 27, 2000) · filed 2000-03-27(j)

The basis of Aetna's objection is stated in its brief as follows: "Because authority for entering a remand is conferred only by statute [General Statutes § 4-183 (j)], the Court's authority to remand exists only after a Court has sustained an appeal under § 4-183 (j). Thus, this Court must determine the issue that brought the parties before this Court in the first place-whether the finding of no reasonable cause is not supported by evidence, or is arbitrary and illegal." (Aetna's brief in opposition to motion to remand at 4-5) This court rejects this contention. ... Certainly Johnston's sweeping language supports a remand regardless of whether the need for it occurs before or after judgment. Therefore the motion is granted.

Section 4-183(h) allows remand to the agency for additional evidence when good reason is shown and the evidence is material.

Lefebvre v. State Dept., No. Cv 99 0498804s (Jan. 3, 2001) · filed 2001-01-03(h)

General Statutes § 4-183 (h) allows a remand to the agency for additional evidence where both a good reason is shown and the evidence is material.

Section 4-183(j) allows a court to sustain an administrative appeal and remand the matter when the agency’s decision prejudices substantial rights by failing to comply with the law.

Morel v. Com. of Public Health, No. Cv 00-0504063s (Jun. 4, 2001) · filed 2001-06-04(j)

The court finds that substantial rights of the plaintiff have been prejudiced because the final decision of the agency does not comply with the law. The appeal is sustained, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j) the matter is remanded to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Section 4-183(j) permits the court to remand an administrative appeal for further proceedings.

Chaterdon v. Wilson-Coker, No. Cv 01-0507957 S (Oct. 12, 2001) · filed 2001-10-12(j)

Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (j), the case is remanded to the defendant for further proceedings, to take place without further delay, to determine whether all other conditions of eligibility for Medicaid benefits are met and, if so, the precise date of eligibility.

A remand is a final judgment under subsection (j) when the court sustains an administrative appeal after ruling on its merits; a remand for additional fact-finding is not.

Lisee v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 2001-11-06(j)

The proximity of these two sentences clearly suggests that the remand referred to in the last sentence is the remand referred to in the preceding sentence, namely, a remand upon sustaining the appeal, notwithstanding the use of the word “section” rather than the word “subsection” in the last sentence of § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(h) permits remand for additional evidence when the evidence is material and there were good reasons for not presenting it to the agency earlier.

Salmon v. Department of Public Health & Addiction Services · filed 2002-02-05(h)

When a party moves for a remand in order to present additional evidence before an administrative agency pursuant to the statute, the trial court’s role is limited to determining whether (1) the evidence is material, and (2) there existed good reasons for not presenting such evidence before the administrative agency originally.

Section 4-183 permits a court to remand an administrative appeal when the agency record lacks facts needed to resolve it.

Hamilton v. Gasia, No. Cv 000504690 S (Apr. 26, 2002) · filed 2002-04-26(h), (i)

Such evidence would be required in order to resolve the merits of this appeal, i.e., the issue of the timeliness of Hamilton's request for hearing. ... Accordingly, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 4-183 (h) 12 and (i) 13 and Lisee v. Commission on Human Rights Opportunities , 258 Conn. 529 , 541-42 , 782 A.2d 670 (2001), the court remands the matter to the agency.

Section 4-183(h) allows the reviewing court to remand a case to the agency while retaining jurisdiction and requires the agency to file its resulting modifications, findings, or decisions with the court.

Ambrose v. Commissioner, Dep, No. Cv02-0512642s (Apr. 4, 2002) · filed 2002-04-04(h)

The court will retain jurisdiction of the case pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (h). Thus, the department "shall file any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court." General Statutes § 4-183 (h).

Section 4-183(k) ordinarily requires a court that overturns an agency decision for insufficient findings to remand for further agency proceedings; the court may direct a specific result only when the agency could reasonably reach no other conclusion.

United Jewish Center v. Town of Brookfield · filed 2003-07-15(k)

The remand was improper. ... Instead, consistent with Feinson, the case should have been remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

A trial court’s remand is a final judgment for purposes of appeal when the court sustains an administrative appeal on the merits after finding prejudice.

Morel v. Commissioner of Public Health · filed 2002-12-31(j)

Applying that test to the present case, we conclude that the trial court’s judgment was final for proposes of appeal. The court ruled on the substance of the plaintiffs appeal in all respects. Additionally, the remand comes squarely within the language of the last sentence of § 4-183 (j), as we interpreted it in Lisee, in that it was a remand under that subsection, in an appeal in which the court found prejudice to the plaintiff and sustained his appeal.

Section 4-183(h) requires a party seeking a remand to present additional evidence to show that the evidence is material and that there were good reasons for not presenting it to the agency.

Wakefield v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2005-07-26(h)

In seeking a remand for further evidentiary proceedings under § 4-183 (h), the plaintiff must demonstrate not only that the report is material, but also that there are good reasons for his failure to present it at the administrative hearing.

A remand under § 4-183 (j) is a final judgment for purposes of appeal, regardless of the proceedings expected to follow before the agency.

Hogan v. Department of Children & Families · filed 2009-03-10(j)

Therefore, we conclude that the remand falls within § 4-183 (j), and, accordingly, is a final judgment for purposes of appeal, “irrespective of both the nature of the remand and the administrative proceedings that are expected to follow it.”

Section 4-183(j) treats a remand after a finding of prejudice to substantial rights as a final judgment; a remand solely for clarification falls outside the section.

Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. City of Hartford · filed 2012-09-18(j)

In the present case, the May 4, 2010 remand order is not within the scope of § 4-183, can properly be characterized as a request for an articulation and, therefore, was not a final judgment.

Section 4-183(g) authorizes a reviewing court to remand an agency case for further proceedings.

Carling Electric, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1975-05-27(g)

General Statutes § 4-183 (g) concerning judicial review states in pertinent part: “The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings.”

Section 4-183(k) permits a reviewing court to direct a particular agency action when the law leaves the agency only one reasonable conclusion.

Williams v. Best Cleaners, Inc. · filed 1996-01-23(k)

When the agency, however, is reversed and it appears “as a matter of law that there is only one single conclusion that the [agency] could reasonably reach,” this court may direct the agency to take that action on remand.

Section 4-183 does not preclude a court from issuing a temporary injunction.

Beck v. Board of Trustees of the State Colleges · filed 1975-06-09

While it is true that the granting of an application for a temporary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the court; ... and that General Statutes § 4-183 does not preclude its issuance, ... the case for the exercise of the court’s discretion in this instance fails.

Section 4-183(c) authorizes a stay pending judicial review; when disclosure would be irreversible, the equities favor a stay absent a compelling higher public interest.

McCarthy v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1979-01-29(c)

The application for a stay of the commission’s decision is authorized by §4-183 (c) of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act. Section 4-183 (c) does not indicate the criteria to be used by the court in determining when a stay should be ordered. ... Given the nature of a freedom of information proceeding — the forced disclosure of restricted information — and absent a compelling higher public interest, the equities weigh in favor of a plaintiff seeking to stay the ordered public delivery of confined records pending a judicial review of the order granted him by a law of equal importance.

Section 4-183(e) permits a stay pending an administrative appeal but does not authorize the reviewing court to order interim enforcement of the agency decision at the appellee’s request.

Wallingford Board of Education v. State Board on Education · filed 1980-05-15(e)

A major issue herein is the meaning and scope of General Statutes § 4-183 (e). ... The sole and exclusive interim action authorized under the UAPA is a stay requested by the non-prevailing party at the administrative hearing, here the Wallingford board.

Section 4-183(c) gives a court broad authority to stay an agency order on appropriate terms during an appeal, even when the stay temporarily permits a disapproved budget.

Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care · filed 1985-06-11(c)

We perceive no such limitation on the broad authority given to a court by § 4-183 (c) to order “a stay upon appropriate terms.”

Section 4-183(c) gives the trial court broad authority to stay an agency decision on appropriate terms while an administrative appeal is pending.

Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care · filed 1986-07-15(c)

In Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care, 196 Conn. 451, 455, 493 A.2d 229 (1985), we stated that General Statutes § 4-183 (c), providing for “a stay upon appropriate terms,” gives the trial court “broad authority to fashion appropriate relief to protect the interest of all those involved during the pendency of an administrative appeal.”

Section 4-183(c) authorizes an agency or reviewing court to grant a stay during an administrative appeal; the court need not first determine whether the appellant is aggrieved.

Park City Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care · filed 1989-04-18(c)

While § 4-183 (c) authorizes either the administrative agency or the reviewing court to grant a stay “upon appropriate terms,” the Superior Court’s exercise of its equitable powers in such instances is in fact much broader, being derived from General Statutes § 52-1. ... The Superior Court’s jurisdiction to act upon an application for a stay and a restraining order, being derived from its general equitable powers as enumerated in § 52-1, did not require the court to determine whether it was dealing with an aggrieved party as a predicate to exercising jurisdiction over the stay proceedings.