Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183

Section 4-183(f) permits an application for a stay to be made to the agency, the court, or both.

Ambrogio v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners · filed 1992-01-17(f)

Section 4-183 (f) deals with stays and provides: “An application for a stay may be made to the agency, to the court or to both.” The court must reject the board’s claim in view of this language.

A decision on a motion for a stay under subsection (f) is not a final judgment appealable before the administrative appeal is resolved.

Waterbury Teachers Ass'n v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1994-08-02(f)

Just as a temporary injunction generally is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal; see Doublewal Corp. v. Toffolon, 195 Conn. 384, 389, 488 A.2d 444 (1985); the decision on a motion for stay pending appeal pursuant to § 4-183 (f) is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal.

Section 4-183(c) permits a court to stay an agency decision pending appeal after balancing the likelihood of success, irreparable harm, effects on other parties, and the public interest.

Bona v. Freedom of Information Commission, No. Cv94-0123208 (Nov. 4, 1994) · filed 1994-11-04(c)

In ruling on a request for a stay under General Statutes § 4-183 (c), the court must balance the equities, which includes consideration of: (1) the likelihood that the appellant will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) whether appellant will be irreparably harmed in the absence of a stay; (3) the effect of a stay upon other parties to the procedure; and (4) the public interest involved.

Section 4-183(f) directs the court to consider the likelihood of success, irreparable injury, effects on other parties, and the public interest when deciding whether to grant a stay.

Monsonis v. Salinas, No. Cv97 0572415 (Apr. 15, 1998) · filed 1998-04-15(f)

Under General Statutes § 4-183 (f), the court considers several factors to consider whether to grant a stay "on appropriate terms": the likelihood the appellant will prevail the irreparability of injury from immediate implementation of the suspension, the effect on other parties, and the public interest. ... The court finds that the issues raised in this case have been addressed by the Appellate Court in a manner that makes it highly unlikely that the plaintiff will prevail in her appeal. ... Due administration of justice requires this court to terminate the stay.

Section 4-183 permits a person seeking judicial review to petition for a stay of an agency order suspending or revoking a professional license.

Breiner v. State, No. Cv98 061275 (Oct. 7, 1998) · filed 1998-10-07

The plaintiff remains licensed while the hearing proceeds and has a right to judicial review of any unfavorable decision and, under § 4-183 of the statutes, to petition for a stay of any order suspending or revoking his right to practice.

Section 4-183(f) permits a stay pending an administrative appeal, but the stay is not automatic; the court must balance the equities before granting one.

Gaming Policy Board v. Parkview Variety, No. Cv00 0179308 S (Sep. 6, 2000) · filed 2000-09-06(f)

The Uniform Administrative Procedures Act authorizes stays pending appeal. See Connecticut General Statutes § 4-183 (f). By the terms of the Statute, stays are not granted automatically. Before allowing a stay, the court must balance the equities.

A court considering a stay under § 4-183(f) may address aggrievement as a threshold issue because it affects the court's jurisdiction over the appeal.

Connecticut Coalition v. Ct. Dpuc., No. Cv-01-0506963 S (Mar. 26, 2001) · filed 2001-03-26(f)

A court may address aggrievement as a threshold issue in the context of a motion to stay.

Section 4-183(f) permits a court to stay an agency decision pending appeal on appropriate terms, after weighing the equities and considering the federal stay factors.

City of Bridgeport v. Dept., Soc. Serv., No. Cv00-0378995s (Jun. 4, 2001) · filed 2001-06-04(f)

General Statutes § 4-183 (f) provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]n application for a stay may be made . . . to the court. . . . A stay, if granted, shall be on appropriate terms." ... Accordingly, it is apparent that the court should consider the federal standard in determining whether the stay should be granted.

Section 4-183(f) does not require a party to seek a stay to preserve an administrative appeal.

Mario D'Addario Buick, Inc. v. Dmv, No. Cv 01-0505960s (Oct. 12, 2001) · filed 2001-10-12(f)

Parties are not required to move for a stay of administrative appeals and do not automatically waive their appeal rights if they chose not to do so. See General Statutes § 4-183 (f).

Section 4-183(f) permits an application to stay an agency decision during an appeal, but filing the appeal alone does not stay enforcement. The court balances likely success, irreparable harm, and the effects of delay on other parties and the public.

New Haven v. Connecticut Siting Council, No. Cv 02-0513195 S (Apr. 23, 2002) · filed 2002-04-23(f)

General Statutes § 4-183 (f) provides that, in the case of an appeal under the UAPA, "[t]he filing of an appeal shall not, of itself, stay enforcement of an agency decision. An application for a stay may be made to the agency, to the court, or both." The test for deciding a stay application calls for a balancing of the equities and considers factors such as "the likely outcome of the appeal, the irreparability of the prospective harm to the applicant, and the effect of delay in implementation of the order upon other parties as well as upon the public interest." Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals Health Care , 196 Conn. 451 , 458-59 , 493 A.2d 229 (1985). The court considers these factors in turn.

Section 4-183(c) allows a reviewing court to stay an agency decision on appropriate terms, although filing an appeal does not automatically stay it.

Laurel Park, Inc. v. Pac · filed 1984-12-25(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c), ... though providing that the filing of an appeal does not automatically stay enforcement of an agency decision, allows the reviewing court to order a stay upon appropriate terms.

Section 4-183 requires a person seeking judicial review to show aggrievement by a final agency decision.

Old Rock Road Corp. v. Commission on Special Revenue · filed 1977-08-09(a)

We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiff has wholly failed to demonstrate that it is “aggrieved by a final decision.” General Statutes § 4-183.

Participation in an agency proceeding alone does not establish aggrievement for an appeal under § 4-183(a).

Hartford Distributors, Inc. v. Liquor Control Commission · filed 1979-06-05(a)

Mere status, however, as a party or a participant in a hearing before an administrative agency does not in and of itself constitute aggrievement for the purposes of appellate review.

Section 4-183(a) requires aggrievement to appeal an administrative order; indirect harm to the value of minority shares from an order directed at the corporation is insufficient.

Ribicoff v. Division of Public Utility Control · filed 1980-10-15(a)

These motions present the question of whether the plaintiffs, who are minority shareholders in corporations holding cable television franchises, have sufficiently alleged aggrievement so as to maintain these appeals from administrative orders which involve revocation of the franchises. See General Statutes § 4-183 (a). The court holds that they have not.

Section 4-183(a) requires an appellant to be aggrieved, meaning a decision has specially and injuriously affected the appellant’s specific personal and legal interest.

Cantor v. Department of Income Maintenance · filed 1985-09-23(a)

The plaintiff herein has taken this appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 which requires that a party taking such an appeal qualify as an “aggrieved party.” The plaintiff has a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decisions appealed from and this interest has been specially and injuriously affected by the decisions to deny title XIX benefits. Id., 176. Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiff is an aggrieved party within the meaning of § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183 (a) treats a person as aggrieved when an agency decision adversely affects a specific, personal and legal interest.

Tarascio v. Muzio · filed 1986-09-12(a)

Tarascio is an aggrieved person within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183 (a) in that a specific, personal and legal interest, his license to drive, has been adversely affected.

Section 4-183 provides an administrative appeal route that an aggrieved party generally cannot bypass through an independent action without showing immediate and irreparable harm.

Harwinton Drilling & Engineering Co. v. Public Utilities Control Authority · filed 1982-08-10

Absent a showing of immediate and irreparable harm, a party who is aggrieved by a decision of an administrative agency may not institute an independent action for the purpose of bypassing the UAPA appeal process.

A physician who alleges that an agency ruling will cause lost revenue through unfair or illegal competition is aggrieved and may appeal under § 4-183.

Connecticut State Medical Society v. Connecticut Board of Examiners in Podiatry · filed 1987-04-21(a)

We hold that the trial court erred in finding that Sella was not aggrieved within the meaning of General Statutes §§ 4-176 and 4-183.

Section 4-183(a) permits judicial review based on aggrievement from an adverse effect on a personal, legally protected environmental interest; the interest need not be in real property.

Glendenning v. Conservation Commission · filed 1987-08-11(a)

The “interest” which may be the subject of aggrievement need not be confined to an interest in real property. Id., 496. It may also be a legally protected interest under the IWWA and local inland wetlands and watercourses agency regulations. See id. This well established rule of aggrievement applies to the statutory scheme under which the appeal here was taken pursuant to §§ 22a-43 (a) and 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183(g) does not permit a reviewing court to substitute its judgment for an agency’s without a factual basis in the record.

City of New Haven v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1988-01-12(g)

Under these circumstances, therefore, the trial court impermissibly substituted its judgment for that of the commission without a factual basis for doing so.

Section 4-183(g) limits judicial review of agency factfinding: a court may not reweigh the evidence considered by the agency.

Board of Education v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1988-07-26(g)

We adhere to our rule that because the FOIC is the factfinder in this case, we decline to appraise and weigh the evidence considered by the FOIC in reaching its determination on the challenged findings.

Section 4-183(g) bars a reviewing court from retrying an administrative case or substituting its judgment for the agency’s on factual questions.

Town of Southington v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations · filed 1989-03-28(g)

The trial court may not retry the case or substitute its judgment for that of the agency on the weight of the evidence or questions of fact. General Statutes § 4-183 (g).

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

Hallas v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1989-05-02(g)

General Statutes § 4-183 (g) sets forth the scope of judicial review of the FOIC’s decision. Our review of the trial court’s decision sustaining the action of the ... commission is limited to a determination of 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 an agency order to whether its findings have substantial and competent evidentiary support and whether its decision exceeds statutory authority or abuses discretion.

State v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1989-06-13(g)

Review of an appeal taken from the order of an administrative agency such as the CHRO is limited to determining whether the agency’s findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence and whether the agency’s decision exceeds its statutory authority or constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Section 4-183(a) requires an administrative appellant to plead and prove aggrievement before the court has jurisdiction; the court may decide that issue early after giving the parties adequate notice.

Park City Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care · filed 1988-05-17(a)

Pleading and proof of facts which constitute aggrievement are essential prerequisites to the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction over an administrative appeal. ... Under the circumstances of this case, however, we conclude that the court did not err in choosing to address the issue of aggrievement at an early stage in the proceedings after affording the parties adequate notice of its intention to do so.

Section 4-183 allows an administrative appeal when an agency decision may adversely affect a legally protected interest.

Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians v. Connecticut Indian Affairs Council · filed 1989-03-28

The plaintiffs appealed this administrative decision to the Superior Court, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183. ... Thus, the individual plaintiffs have satisfied the test for determining aggrievement because they have shown that there is a possibility that a legally protected interest, namely, tribal member status, has been adversely affected by the CIAC’s decision.

Section 4-183(a) requires a party appealing an agency decision to establish aggrievement; a bare assertion of aggrievement is insufficient.

Blau v. State Board of Education · filed 1989-08-22(a)

Unless a party can establish aggrievement, that party has no standing to appeal. General Statutes § 4-183 (a). Moreover, the mere statement that the party is aggrieved, without supporting allegations as to the particular nature of the aggrievement, is insufficient for a court to determine aggrievement.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person appealing a final agency decision to be aggrieved; an interest shared with the general public does not qualify.

Connecticut Business & Industry Ass'n v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care · filed 1990-05-01(a)

Both § 4-183 (a), upon which the plaintiffs rely for authority to appeal, and § 19a-158, which the defendants claim is the exclusive basis for appealing from a CHHC decision, expressly require that one be “aggrieved” by a “final decision” in order to appeal.

Section 4-183(a) requires a party to prove aggrievement to have standing to appeal an agency decision.

Lewin v. United States Surgical Corp. · filed 1990-06-05(a)

“Pleading and proof of aggrievement is a prerequisite to a trial court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of an appeal. ... Unless a party can establish aggrievement, that party has no standing to appeal. General Statutes § 4-183 (a).” ... The plaintiffs have not sustained their burden of proof on the issue of aggrievement. We conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing their appeal.

Section 4-183(a) allows existing motor carrier certificate holders to establish aggrievement when a new certificate may diminish the value of their certificates through competition for which no public need exists.

Light Rigging Co. v. Department of Public Utility Control · filed 1991-06-11(a)

Because a possibility exists, however, that the alleged competition and the resulting diminution in value of the plaintiffs’ certificates arise from the grant of a certificate for which no public need exists, we conclude that, under this particular statutory administrative scheme, such allegations were sufficient to establish that there is a possibility that the plaintiffs’ specific personal and legal interests in their certificates have been specially and injuriously affected by the DPUC’s decision.

Section 4-183(a) permits a person denied medical benefits to appeal as aggrieved when the denial adversely affects a specific personal and legal interest.

Verde v. State Dept. of Income Maintenance, No. 095907 (Oct. 28, 1991) · filed 1991-10-28(a)

The UAPA allows an "aggrieved" person to appeal from a final decision of an agency. Connecticut General Statutes Section 4-183 (a), as amended by Connecticut Public Act No. 88-317 , Section 23 (eff. July 1, 1989). ... A person who has been denied Medicare benefits is an aggrieved person within the statute in that a specific, personal and legal interest has been adversely affected. Therefore the plaintiffs are aggrieved.

Section 4-183(a) treats a person as aggrieved when an agency decision adversely affects a specific personal and legal interest.

Field v. Goldberg · filed 1991-12-19(a)

The court finds that the commissioner’s decision adversely affected a specific personal and legal interest of the plaintiff, his right to operate a motor vehicle, and concludes, therefore, that he is aggrieved by that decision within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183(a) allows an aggrieved person to appeal a final agency decision, and a person whose license has been suspended is aggrieved.

Casimono v. Goldberg, No. 517557 (Apr. 29, 1992) · filed 1992-04-29(a)

The Uniform Administrative Procedure Act allows an "aggrieved" person to appeal from a final decision of an agency. General Statutes Section 4-183 (a). One whose license has been suspended pursuant to Section 14-227b is aggrieved. Tarascio v. Muzio, 40 Conn. Sup. 505 , 507 (1986). Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved.

Section 4-183(a) requires an appellant to allege a concrete, actual legally protected interest; speculative lost revenue does not establish aggrievement.

New England Rehabilitation Hospital of Hartford, Inc. v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care · filed 1993-06-22(a)

To satisfy the aggrievement requirement of §§ 4-183 (a) and 19a-158, the plaintiffs must allege a legally protected interest that is concrete and actual, not merely one that is hypothetical. A speculative loss of revenue is insufficient to confer standing and establish aggrievement.

Section 4-183(a) permits a town to appeal an agency order when the order gives it a specific, personal interest and a potential injury.

Hebron v. Conn. State Labor Board, No. Hhd-Cv92-0519947 (Jan. 11, 1994) · filed 1994-01-11(a)

The court finds that the Town's allegations reciting its dispute with the Labor Board's finding that representatives of the Town, not the Board of Education, must meet upon demand of the Union to negotiate regarding pensions and ordering ancillary relief, and its finding that the town charter vests sole and exclusive control over pension benefits for the non-certified employees of the Board of Education with the Town constitute a sufficient articulation of aggrievement to meet the requirement of Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183 requires a person appealing an agency decision to show aggrievement, which may be established by a possible adverse effect on a specific personal and legal interest.

Cameron v. Commissioner of Human Res., No. Cv93 0524338 (Apr. 25, 1994) · filed 1994-04-25

Her claims satisfy the test for establishing aggrievement as set forth in the [ Light Rigging ] case, supra, and as required by General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183's aggrievement requirement is satisfied when a decision will suspend a person's driver's license.

Toohey v. Commissioner, Motor Vehicles, No. Aan Cv91-0036601 (Jun. 20, 1994) · filed 1994-06-20

Suspension of a driver's license constitutes a specific, legal, and personal interest which satisfies the aggrievement requirement of § 4-183 . ... Since the defendant's decision, if upheld, will result in plaintiff's license being suspended for six months, the plaintiff is an aggrieved party who is entitled to bring this appeal.

Section 4-183(a) requires an administrative appellant to be aggrieved by a final decision; conclusory allegations and speculative future harm do not establish aggrievement.

Town of Stonington Wpca v. Keeney, No. 52 50 58 (Jul. 19, 1994) · filed 1994-07-19(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) provides that "[a] person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the superior court as provided in this section." (Emphasis added.) ... Therefore, the court finds that the plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to establish aggrievement so as to entitle the plaintiff to a hearing to submit evidence of aggrievement.

Section 4-183(a) permits an administrative appeal by a person who has exhausted agency remedies and is aggrieved; a competitor is aggrieved only as to claims within a statute’s protection of its interests.

United Cable T. Serv. v. D. of P. Util. C., No. Cv94-0536175 (Sep. 2, 1994) · filed 1994-09-02(a)

The UAPA, at General Statutes § 4-183 (a), authorizes an appeal to the superior court by a "person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision . . ." ... TCI has established aggrievement only as to its claim that the certificate issued to FiberVision is upon terms and conditions more favorable than those imposed on TCI.

Section 4-183(a) requires an administrative appellant to show a specific personal and legal interest that the agency decision specially and injuriously affected.

City of Norwich v. Freedom of Information Comm., No. 104397 (Jan. 6, 1995) · filed 1995-01-06(a)

The court finds that the plaintiffs have demonstrated aggrievement. The plaintiffs have shown a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision which is specially and injuriously affected; a personal contractual obligation between the plaintiffs and the defendants which is totally abrogated. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties.

A driver whose license is suspended is aggrieved under § 4-183 and may appeal the suspension.

Oakes v. Conn. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv94-0705045-S (Mar. 31, 1995) · filed 1995-03-31

Since the decision of the defendant suspended the plaintiff's license, the plaintiff is aggrieved within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183(a) requires an appellant to show aggrievement by establishing a personal and legal interest adversely affected by the decision.

Harhay v. Board of Education, No. Cv 94 55336 S (Jul. 21, 1995) · filed 1995-07-21(a)

"Unless a party can establish aggrievement, that party has no standing to appeal. General Statutes § 4-183 (a)." Id. A party must demonstrate a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision and establish that such interest has been specially and adversely affected by the decision. ... Because the School Board's decision deprived the plaintiff of this interest, the court finds the plaintiff is aggrieved and has standing to bring this appeal.

Section 4-183(a) requires aggrievement to appeal an agency decision; a feared preclusive effect from an adverse finding does not establish aggrievement when the finding can be relitigated.

Water Pollution Control Authority v. Keeney · filed 1995-07-25(a)

Accordingly, because the finding of unreasonable pollution does not preclude relitigation of that issue if that determination is not appealable, the plaintiffs feared preclusive effect of the finding of unreasonable pollution is not enough, in and of itself, to constitute aggrievement and render an otherwise unappealable determination appealable.

Section 4-183 treats parties as aggrieved when an agency decision affects their significant personal and legal interests.

Yantic Volunteer Fire Co. v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1995-10-15

Since the decision of the commission requires the plaintiffs to provide copies of their charters, bylaws, policies and procedures, and their members’ names and addresses, all significant personal and legal interests, the court finds that the plaintiffs are aggrieved within the meaning of § 4-183 and Light Rigging Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 219 Conn. 168, 173, 592 A.2d 386 (1991).

Section 4-183(a) allows a person aggrieved by a final agency decision to appeal when the decision specifically injures that person's legal interest.

Aqua Treatment Ser. v. Dep. of Pub. Ut., No. Cv 93 53252 S (Dec. 12, 1995) · filed 1995-12-12(a)

Section 4-183 (a) of the UAPA provides that "[a] person. . . who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the superior court as provided in this section." ... Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiff has suffered aggrievement by the Departments' decision of May 5, 1993.

Section 4-183 permits a pilot whose license is suspended to appeal as an aggrieved party.

Walker v. Department of Transportation, No. Cv96-557853 (Feb. 27, 1996) · filed 1996-02-27(a)

Suspension of a pilot's license constitutes an adverse effect upon a specific, legal, and personal interest sufficient to satisfy the aggrievement requirement of General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183 requires an appellant to be aggrieved by a final agency decision; being a competitor alone does not establish aggrievement.

Ace Amb. Ser. v. Dep. of Pub. Hlth. Add., No. Cv95-0552348 (May 6, 1996) · filed 1996-05-06

The status of being the competitor of a company that has been awarded authorization to commence or expand services does not, in and of itself, make a party an aggrieved party for purposes of General Statutes § 4-183 , which authorizes appeals only by "a person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision."

Section 4-183(a) limits appeals from final agency decisions to people who have exhausted their administrative remedies and are aggrieved.

Johnson v. Freedom of Information Comm., No. Cv95-0551668 (May 20, 1996) · filed 1996-05-20(a)

The court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is aggrieved as to the issue of notice to others, and the court therefore lacks jurisdiction as to this claim, since the court's powers of review of the decisions of administrative agencies are limited to those appeals brought by "[a] person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision. . . ." General Statutes § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183 requires an administrative appellant to be legally aggrieved; an interest shared with other customers or a competitive interest outside the statute’s protected zone does not suffice.

Message Ctr. Beepers v. Pub. Util. Ctrl., No. Cv 95 055 50 89 (May 30, 1996) · filed 1996-05-30

In their motions to dismiss, the defendants advance three arguments: ... (3) that the plaintiff is not aggrieved by the DPUC's decision as required by § 4-183 . The court finds in favor of the plaintiff on issues (1) and (2) but agrees with the defendants on issue (3).

Section 4-183(a) requires a person appealing an agency’s final decision to be aggrieved, and the person must prove aggrievement in the trial court to establish jurisdiction.

State Library v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1996-06-11(a)

Both §§ l-21i (d) and 4-183 (a) require that a person who desires to appeal from a final decision of the commission be aggrieved by that decision.

An association appealing under § 4-183 must identify its members and prove that they are individually aggrieved.

Laurel Hill Assn. v. Ct Freedom of Info. Comm., No. 32 04 64 (Jul. 23, 1996) · filed 1996-07-23

This requires that the LHA identify its members and prove that they would have standing to sue in their own right — in other words, that the LHA's members are either classically or statutorily aggrieved. ... Accordingly, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as they have failed to sustain their burden of pleading and proving aggrievement.

A person whose motor vehicle operator's license is suspended is aggrieved under § 4-183 and may appeal the suspension.

Littlefield v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv94-0705524s (Nov. 25, 1996) · filed 1996-11-25

Since the decision of the defendant suspended the plaintiff's license, the plaintiff is aggrieved within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183(b) requires an administrative appellant to show a specific personal and legal interest in the agency decision and a special, injurious effect on that interest.

East Lyme Water and Sewer v. F.O.I.C., No. Knl Cv96-0538605 (Jan. 27, 1997) · filed 1997-01-27(b)

In appeals under General Statutes §§ 1-21i (d) and 4-183 (b) there is a twofold test for aggrievement. Aggrievement requires a showing of (1) a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the FOIC decision, and (2) a special and injurious effect on this specific interest.

Suspension of a pilot's license satisfies § 4-183's aggrievement requirement because it adversely affects a specific personal and legal interest.

Walker v. Department of Transportation, No. Cv96-557853 (Feb. 27, 1997) · filed 1997-02-27

Suspension of a pilot's license constitutes an adverse effect upon a specific, legal, and personal interest sufficient to satisfy the aggrievement requirement of General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183(i) requires an evidentiary hearing to prove aggrievement only when the administrative record is insufficient.

State Library v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1997-05-13(i)

Pursuant to § 4-183 (i), proof of aggrievement requires an evidentiary hearing only in the absence of a sufficient administrative record.

Section 4-183 permits a person aggrieved by a final agency decision to seek judicial review; aggrievement can be shown by a possibility that a specific personal and legal interest was adversely affected.

Ct. Employees Union v. State, Dep't of Ins., No. Cv970573468 (Nov. 25, 1997) · filed 1997-11-25

Under General Statutes § 4-183 , a person "who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the Superior Court as provided in this section." ... Here, the plaintiffs have pleaded and proved a possibility that an interest they have as policyholders has been adversely affected. Accordingly, they are entitled to a judicial review of the commissioner's decision.

Section 4-183 permits a person aggrieved by a final administrative decision to seek judicial review; a possible adverse effect on a protected interest can establish aggrievement.

Wyman v. State, Dep't of Insurance, No. Cv97-0573695 (Nov. 25, 1997) · filed 1997-11-25

Under General Statutes § 4-183 , a person "who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the Superior Court as provided in this section." ... The plaintiff has pleaded and proved a possibility that an interest she has as a policyholder has been adversely affected. Accordingly, she is entitled to a judicial review of the commissioner's decision.

Section 4-183(a) requires an emergency medical service organization to be aggrieved by a department decision before it may appeal, even if another statute authorizes an appeal.

Med-Trans of Connecticut, Inc. v. Department of Public Health & Addiction Services · filed 1997-07-29(a)

This argument is unavailing. Following the plaintiffs logic would remove the requirement that emergency medical organizations must be aggrieved by a decision of the department.

Section 4-183 permits a person to appeal an agency decision when a specific personal and legal interest may be adversely affected.

Bell Atl. Nynex Mob. v. Dpuc., No. Cv96-0563685 (Mar. 27, 1998) · filed 1998-03-27

Under General Statutes § 4-183 , a person who is aggrieved may appeal pursuant to its provisions. The court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved in that it has a specific personal and legal interest that has possibly been adversely affected.

Section 4-183 permits a person aggrieved by a final administrative decision to appeal to the Superior Court; adverse findings that could affect future licensure can establish aggrievement.

Buscetto v. Department Motor Vehicles, No. Cv97 0112891 (Apr. 30, 1998) · filed 1998-04-30

Under General Statutes § 4-183 , a person "who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the Superior Court as provided in this section." ... Because the hearing officer made such adverse findings as to this plaintiff, even though no order of suspension or revocation entered, nor was any civil penalty imposed, the plaintiff may suffer future adverse consequences if he seeks reinstatement as set forth in the statute. Accordingly, the plaintiff is aggrieved.

A dealer whose license is suspended is aggrieved under § 4-183(a) because the suspension affects a significant personal and legal interest.

Buscetto v. Department of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv97 0112305 (Apr. 30, 1998) · filed 1998-04-30(a)

Since the decision of the defendant suspended the plaintiff s license to do business, a significant personal and CT Page 5219 legal interest, the court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved within the meaning of General Statutes 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183(a) requires a person appealing an agency's final decision to establish aggrievement; speculative economic harms do not satisfy that requirement.

Nizzardo v. State Traffic Comm. of Ct., No. Cv97 0157581-S (May 1, 1998) · filed 1998-05-01(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) states that "[a] person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the Superior Court as provided in this section." ... Accordingly, Nizzardo's appeal is dismissed on the ground that he has failed to establish that he is aggrieved by the decision of the STC.

Section 4-183 permits an administrative appeal by a provider aggrieved because an agency decision requires it to contribute economically to a program.

Bell Atlantic Mobile v. Dpuc, No. Cv98-0492713s (Mar. 3, 1999) · filed 1999-03-03

In that BAM is required to economically contribute to the Lifeline Program, it is aggrieved by the DPUC decision.

Section 4-183 permits a property owner and individuals personally subject to an agency order to appeal as aggrieved persons.

Bec Co. v. Dep. of Environmental Prot., No. Cv 98 0492627s (May 3, 1999) · filed 1999-05-03

The plaintiff BEC is the owner of the property and the plaintiffs Irvin and Michael Shiner are personally subject to the DEP order. Thus, all plaintiffs are aggrieved persons who may maintain this appeal pursuant to the UAPA, § 4-183 .

An agency order requiring a party to disclose records makes that party aggrieved for purposes of an appeal under § 4-183.

Envirotest Systems Corporation v. F.O.I.c, No. 98 0492648s (May 18, 1999) · filed 1999-05-18

Since the decision of the commission requires the plaintiff to provide copies of all records related to any request, requirement or advisement of changes to the 5/93 revision, the court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183 permits an administrative appeal when an agency decision aggrieves the appellant.

Director, Ret. Ben. Ser. v. Freedom, Inf., No. 98 0492646s (Jun. 15, 1999) Ct Page 6987 · filed 1999-06-15

Since the decision of the commission requires the plaintiff to provide a copy of the memorandum prepared by Steven Weinberger regarding a possible upgrading for Russell, the court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183 permits an aggrieved party to appeal an agency decision; an order requiring disclosure and future compliance establishes aggrievement.

Director, Ret. Ben. Serv. Div. v. Foic, No. Cv 98 0492692 (Nov. 9, 1999) · filed 1999-11-09

Since the decision of the FOIC requires the plaintiff to provide the requested home addresses of the Department employees and to henceforth strictly comply with the provisions of FOIA, the court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183 requires an administrative appellant to plead facts showing aggrievement; without them, the court lacks jurisdiction.

Connecticut Atty. Tit. Ins. v. Conn. Ins., No. Cv 99-0496953 (Mar. 6, 2000) · filed 2000-03-06(a)

While it is true that the plaintiff need not use the term "aggrievement" in its appeal, Local 1344 v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations , 30 Conn. Sup. 259 (1973), the plaintiff must nevertheless plead facts in its complaint sufficient for the court to determine aggrievement as a matter of law.

Section 4-183 (a) treats a party required by an agency decision to disclose documents as aggrieved for purposes of judicial review.

Meri-Weather, Inc. v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 2000-03-27(a)

Because the commission’s decision requires the plaintiff to provide copies of all the requested documents, the court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183 (a) of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes § 4-166 et seq.

An agency order requiring disclosure of documents makes the recipient aggrieved under § 4-183(a).

Meri-Weather v. Freedom of Info. Comm., No. Cv 99 0494415s (Mar. 27, 2000) · filed 2000-03-27(a)

Since the commission's decision requires the plaintiff to provide copies of all the requested documents, the court finds that plaintiff is aggrieved within the meaning of Connecticut General Statutes § 4-183 (a), New England Rehabilitation Hospital of Hartford. Inc. v. CHHC , 226 Conn. 105 , 120 (1993).

Section 4-183 permits an aggrieved party to seek judicial review of a final agency decision.

Handivan v. Dept., Public Hlth., No. 98 0493907s (May 4, 2000) · filed 2000-05-04

Since the decision of the department denied the plaintiff's application for twenty-four invalid coach licenses, the court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183(a) permits an administrative appeal when the appellant shows a possibility that the agency decision injured a specific personal and legal interest.

University of Ct v. Dept. of Public Ut., No. Cv 99 0497826s (Sep. 13, 2000) · filed 2000-09-13(a)

Charter has moved to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal on the grounds of lack of aggrievement under General Statutes § 4-183 (a). ... "In light of the fact that standing is not a technical rule intended to keep aggrieved parties out of court; nor is it a test of substantive rights," the court is satisfied that the University has established that there is a possibility that a specific personal and legal interest has been injuriously affected by the application of the DPUC order.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person appealing an agency decision to be aggrieved; a corporate employer has no direct interest in preventing disclosure of its employees’ certified payroll records.

Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. State, No. Cv 00 0502573s (Sep. 28, 2000) · filed 2000-09-28(a)

Subsection (a) of General Statutes § 4-183 provides the right to an administrative appeal to "a person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision. . . ." ... The plaintiff's employees or the Town would have satisfied the test for classical aggrievement, but not the plaintiff, a corporate employer.

Section 4-183(a) permits an administrative appeal by a person aggrieved by a final agency decision.

Onuska v. State Dept. of Social Serv., No. Cv 99 0497916s (Dec. 19, 2000) · filed 2000-12-19(a)

The plaintiff has failed to plead and prove aggrievement as required by General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183 allows an administrative appeal when an agency decision requiring future compliance aggrieves the appealing party.

Chief of Police v. Freedom of Info Comm., No. Cv 99 0497252s (Jan. 12, 2001) · filed 2001-01-12

Since the decision of the FOIC requires the plaintiffs to comply in the future with the provisions of the FOIA, the court finds that the plaintiffs are aggrieved within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183(a) allows a person aggrieved by a final agency decision to appeal to Superior Court; suspension of a driver's license makes the license holder aggrieved.

Mahon v. Commissioner of Dmv, No. Cv 01-0506612s (Jun. 8, 2001) · filed 2001-06-08(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) provides in relevant part that "[a] person . . . who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the Superior Court. . . ." ... Thus, this court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved.

Revocation of a used car dealer's license makes the licensee aggrieved for purposes of an appeal under § 4-183(a).

Brico v. Department, Motor Vehicles, No. Cv 00 0503799s (Jun. 19, 2001) · filed 2001-06-19(a)

The plaintiff has timely appealed from the revocation of his used car dealer's license. The plaintiff is aggrieved.

Section 4-183(a) permits a person aggrieved by an agency's final decision to appeal to the Superior Court.

Lantiere v. State, No. Cv 0504695s (Jun. 26, 2001) Ct Page 8421 · filed 2001-06-26(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) provides in relevant part that "[a] person . . . who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the Superior Court. . . ." ... This court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved.

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal by a person aggrieved by a final agency decision; a possible future suit for payment can establish aggrievement.

Ross v. Wilson-Coker, No. Cv 00 0501203s (Aug. 16, 2001) · filed 2001-08-16(a)

Subsection (a) of General Statutes § 4-183 provides the right to an administrative appeal to "a person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision. . . ." (Emphasis added.) ... Here, the plaintiff has been rejected in the pre-clearance process; the possibility of a future lawsuit by her chiropractor exists. Therefore, aggrievement is found.

Section 4-183(a) allows a person aggrieved by a final agency decision to appeal to Superior Court; an employer subject to an adverse CHRO decision is aggrieved.

Thames Talent v. Commission on H. Rights, No. Cv 00 504806 S (Aug. 27, 2001) · filed 2001-08-27(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) provides in relevant part that "[a] person . . . who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the Superior Court. . . ." ... Therefore, this court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person bringing an administrative appeal to allege and prove aggrievement; alleging suspension of a nonresident driving privilege alone does not establish it.

Keener v. Defilippo, No. Cv 01-0508809 S (Nov. 30, 2001) · filed 2001-11-30(a)

In order to have standing to bring an administrative appeal, a person or entity must be aggrieved. See New England Rehabilitation Hospital of Hartford, Inc. v. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care , 226 Conn. 105 , 120 , 627 A.2d 1257 (1993); General Statutes § 4-183 (a). ... The plaintiff has done nothing to meet her burden of proof.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person appealing an agency decision to be aggrieved; without classical or statutory aggrievement, the person lacks standing to appeal.

Terese B. v. Commissioner of Children · filed 2002-02-12(a)

Because we have determined that the plaintiff has not established that she is either classically or statutorily aggrieved, we conclude that she does not have standing to pursue her claim. In the absence of standing on the part of the plaintiff, the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine her appeal.

Section 4-183(a) permits a municipality to appeal an agency decision that interferes with its authority to apply local laws.

Town of Westport v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 2002-05-21(a)

The trial court rejected that contention, however, concluding that, because, under the town’s theory, a mixed use of cellular and noncellular providers, as in this case, would allow the town to apply its local laws and ordinances, the decision of the council interfering with the town’s rights made it an aggrieved party. ... Accordingly, we adopt the trial court’s well reasoned decision.

Section 4-183(a) requires aggrievement to appeal an agency decision; a declaratory ruling about past conduct based on hypothetical, nonbinding facts does not satisfy that requirement.

ABC, LLC v. State Ethics Commission · filed 2003-07-29(a)

Accordingly, the plaintiffs were not aggrieved by the commission’s declaratory ruling within the meaning of § 4-183, and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ appeal.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person or entity to be aggrieved to appeal a Siting Council decision.

New Haven v. Ct Siting Council, No. Cv 02-0513195 S (Aug. 21, 2002) · filed 2002-08-21(a)

Accordingly, in order to have standing to bring an administrative appeal from a decision of the Siting Council under § 4-183 (a), a person or entity must be aggrieved.

Section 4-183 requires a person appealing a declaratory ruling to establish aggrievement; petitioning for the ruling alone does not establish it.

Bingham v. Department of Public Works · filed 2008-05-06(a)

The expansive right to petition for a declaratory ruling under § 4-176 therefore does not confer an automatic right to appeal under § 4-183.

Section 4-183(a) requires a party appealing a final administrative decision to be aggrieved; without aggrievement, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Jaeger v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 2010-03-15(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) requires that a party taking an administrative appeal from a final decision be aggrieved. Lack of aggrievement deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

A person who prevailed at the agency hearing and shows no other effect on his interests is not aggrieved and cannot bring an administrative appeal under § 4-183(a).

Albright-Lazzari v. Commissioner of Children · filed 2010-04-13(a)

Accordingly, because Anthony Lazzari prevailed at the department hearing and has not indicated how his interests are otherwise affected by the decision, he was not aggrieved.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person appealing an agency decision to be aggrieved by that decision; a person outside the class protected by the underlying statute lacks standing to appeal.

Albuquerque v. State Employees Retirement Commission · filed 2010-11-09(a)

Because the decedent elected to preclude the plaintiff from spousal benefits under § 7-439g, the plaintiff is not within the class of persons the statute was intended to benefit, and she was not aggrieved by the defendant’s declaratory ruling. The court therefore properly dismissed the plaintiffs administrative appeal because she lacked standing.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person appealing a final agency decision to establish aggrievement.

Jaeger v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 2011-04-26(a)

The plaintiff appealed from the decision of the defendant to the trial court pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183. ... After carefully reviewing the record on appeal, along with the briefs and arguments presented by the parties, we are persuaded that the decision of the trial court should be affirmed. The trial court’s memorandum of decision fully addresses the plaintiffs claims of alleged aggrievement, and its analysis is consistent with the applicable law and precedents. Therefore, we adopt the trial court’s well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on this issue.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person seeking review of a final administrative decision to demonstrate statutory or classical aggrievement; it does not grant automatic standing.

Brouillard v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 2012-02-28(a)

Under § 4-183 (a), a person seeking review must demonstrate aggrievement, whether statutory or classical, in order to appeal a final administrative decision.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person appealing an agency decision to show aggrievement.

Brouillard v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 2010-10-07(a)

Section 4-183 includes the requirement that persons who wish to appeal must show aggrievement.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person appealing a final agency decision to be aggrieved; a records requester lacks standing to appeal the Freedom of Information Commission’s decision not to impose a civil penalty.

Aronow v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 2019-05-14(a)

This court concluded that the plaintiff in Burton was neither classically nor statutorily aggrieved by the commission’s decision not to impose a civil penalty because the decision did not violate a legal interest of the plaintiff and there was no statutory authority that provided the plaintiff with standing to appeal to the trial court from the commission’s failure to impose such a penalty. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not err in granting the commission’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s civil penalty claim for lack of standing.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person appealing an agency’s final decision to be aggrieved; eligibility to request a fair hearing alone does not establish standing to appeal.

Freese v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. Gustav Cariglio · filed 2017-08-29(a)

Therefore, the plaintiffs’ standing to appeal from the defendant’s denials of their Medicaid applications is derived solely from §§ 4-183 (a) and 17b-61 (b), and unless the plain- tiffs established the prerequisites to standing as required by those sections, namely, aggrievement, their appeals are subject to dismissal.

Section 4-183 requires a person appealing an agency decision to be aggrieved; intervenor status alone does not establish aggrievement.

High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health · filed 2025-08-05(a)

It is well settled that the plaintiff’s intervenor status in an administrative proceeding is not sufficient to confer standing to appeal from a decision on the merits.

Section 4-183(a) permits an administrative appeal when the agency decision injures the appellant's specific personal and legal interest.

Bruce v. State, No. Cv 99 69725 S (Dec. 11, 2000) · filed 2000-12-11(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) provides that "[a] person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the Superior Court as provided in this section." ... In the present case, the plaintiff has demonstrated a specific and personal legal interest in the subject matter of the decision because it is the plaintiff's cause of action on which the DAS has placed a lien. The second part of the test is satisfied because the decision of the DSS hearing officer upheld the lien placed on the plaintiff's property. Consequently, the plaintiff is aggrieved.

Section 4-183(a) permits judicial review of a contested case when a municipal commission acts as an agent of a state officer and the proceeding determines a legal right.

Connecticut Air Service, Inc. v. Danbury Aviation Commission · filed 1989-06-27(a)

Accordingly, if, on remand, an agency relationship is found to exist between the commissioner and the commission, a hearing involving the determination of a legal right will be deemed to have taken place thereby making the proceeding below a “contested case” within the meaning of § 4-166 (2). As a contested case, it will qualify for appellate review under § 4-183 (a) of the UAPA.

Section 4-183 permits a direct appeal from the environmental department’s certification of equipment for a local tax exemption.

Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. City of Norwalk · filed 1979-09-11

It is now clear that such an appeal would have been appropriate, either under General Statutes § 25-17; ... or under General Statutes § 4-183 of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.

Section 4-183 limits administrative appeals to agency decisions or orders in contested cases; a declaratory ruling issued without a hearing must be challenged through a declaratory judgment action.

Shearson American Express, Inc. v. Banking Commissioner · filed 1983-08-05

We believe, however, that the provisions are consistent, since we interpret the last sentence to mean that where a hearing was conducted and the petition was then dismissed, an aggrieved party has a right of appeal under § 4-183. Where, however, no hearing was conducted, as in the present case, the statute requires that the plaintiff bring an action for a declaratory judgment, rather than an administrative appeal, which is limited by § 4-183 to agency decisions or orders in contested cases.

Section 4-183(a) allows judicial review of agency action only when the action is a final decision in a contested case; rejecting a bid or awarding a contract does not qualify.

Ardmare Construction Co. v. Freedman · filed 1983-11-15(a)

A party seeking review of a state agency’s action, therefore, must establish more than aggrievement (injury in fact); he must establish that the injury resulted from a final decision in a contested case.

Section 4-183(a) permits an administrative appeal only from an agency’s final decision; a court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from another agency action.

Neri v. Powers · filed 1985-04-16(a)

Thus, to the extent that the court exercised its jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ appeal from a decision other than a final decision pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (a), it exercised jurisdiction which it did not have, and the plaintiffs’ appeal was dismissable.

Section 4-183(g) does not give the Superior Court jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of the claims commissioner.

Circle Lanes of Fairfield, Inc. v. Fay · filed 1985-03-26(g)

Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss these appeals should have been granted by the trial court because the Superior Court never had jurisdiction under any part of General Statutes § 4-183 (g).

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal only from a final agency decision; a liability ruling is not final when the agency must still exercise judgment in determining damages.

Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1987-01-27(a)

We must determine then, if the CHRO’s September decision, which indicated that further evidence on damages would be received, constitutes a “final decision” for purposes of § 4-183 (a). ... Consequently, the September order of the tribunal was not a final decision, and therefore CBT’s appeal was premature.

Section 4-183(b)’s service rules do not apply to an appeal from a municipal code enforcement committee that is not a state agency under the UAPA.

Edwards v. Code Enforcement Committee · filed 1987-12-15(b)

The second claim of the plaintiffs that the legislature deleted from § 4-183 (b), via Public Acts 1979, No. 79-163, the requirement that service of process in administrative appeals be carried out in accordance with the provisions for service of process in civil actions, falls with our conclusion that the defendant agency does not come within the meaning of state “agency” under the provisions of § 4-166 (1) of the UAPA.

Section 4-183 does not govern appeals from a municipal demolition board because the board is not a state agency under the UAPA.

Danziger v. Demolition Board · filed 1989-02-07

Although the plaintiffs have purported to treat their appeals to the Superior Court and to this court as pursuant to General Statutes §§ 4-183 and 4-184 of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA), it is clear that the UAPA does not apply because the defendant is not a state “agency.” General Statutes § 4-166 (1). We have treated this appeal, therefore, as an administrative appeal from a municipal agency authorized by § 90-11 of the Stamford code of ordinances. See footnote 2, infra.

Section 4-183 does not authorize an administrative appeal from a municipal board because the board is not a state agency.

Danziger v. Demolition Board · filed 1989-04-04

The trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ appeal pursuant to the UAPA because the defendant is not a state agency.

Section 4-183(a) permits immediate review of an adverse preliminary agency ruling if review after the final decision would not provide an adequate remedy.

Pet v. Department of Health Services · filed 1988-05-10(a)

Not only does that statute provide a right of appeal from a final agency decision by an aggrieved party, but it also includes an immediate right to appeal from an adverse preliminary ruling if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.

An agency decision can be final and appealable under § 4-183(a) even when the agency reserves related issues for later proceedings, if the agency intends a final decision and the appellant is aggrieved.

City of New Haven v. New Haven Police Union Local 530 · filed 1989-04-04(a)

So long as the agency intends to render a final decision and the person taking the appeal is aggrieved by the decision rendered, the fact that other related issues are reserved for later adjudication does not necessarily detract from its finality. The reservation by the board of the issue of compensation of the individual officers, upon which no evidence had been presented at the hearing, therefore, did not render its decision interlocutory.

Section 4-183 allows an applicant to appeal an agency denial without first petitioning the agency for a declaratory ruling under § 4-176.

Rivera v. Heintz · filed 1990-06-05

According to the DIM, the plaintiff was required to petition the agency for a declaratory ruling as to the validity of § 2515.05 pursuant to General Statutes § 4-176 before she could appeal the denial of her application under General Statutes § 4-183. The opposite is true.

Section 4-183 requires a party to exhaust available administrative remedies before appealing an agency decision, even when the party challenges the agency’s jurisdiction.

Cannata v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 1990-07-17(a)

A plaintiff seeking a right to appeal under § 4-183 must exhaust all administrative remedies.

Section 4-183 allows an appeal to the Superior Court only after all administrative remedies have been exhausted.

Wilkinson v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission · filed 1991-02-26

General Statutes § 4-183, in turn, allows such appeals only when all administrative remedies have been exhausted.

Section 4-183(b) applies only to appeals from final decisions in contested cases.

Klug v. Inland Wetlands Commission · filed 1989-09-12(b)

General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 4-183 (b), which is part of the UAPA, applies, however, only to a final decision “in a contested case.”

Section 4-183(a) requires an administrative appeal to be taken from a decision in a contested case; an agency letter issued without a required hearing did not meet that requirement.

Easter House, Inc. v. Department of Children & Youth Services · filed 1990-04-17(a)

Accordingly, the plaintiffs appeal was not taken from a decision in a contested case, as required by § 4-183 (a), and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal, which was properly dismissed.

Section 4-183 permits an aggrieved person to appeal only a final decision in a contested case.

Town of Southington v. State Traffic Com., No. Cv36 28 40 (Jan. 14, 1991) · filed 1991-01-14(a)

General Statutes Section 14-311 (e) authorizes an aggrieved person to appeal form the STC determination pursuant to Section 4-183 (UAPA). The latter provision permits an appeal by one who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case. For the reasons stated herein, the STC proceedings concerning the issuance of Certificate 606-A on May 4, 1989, and Executive Director's decision of August 14, 1989, did not satisfy the legal requirements of a "contested case".

Section 4-183 permits review of an agency decision that determined the parties’ rights when a request for rehearing was denied before a motion to dismiss the appeal was filed.

Town of Killingly v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 1991-12-10(a)

We conclude that the denial by the siting council of the town’s request for rehearing negated KELP’s claim, filed over two months later, that the plaintiffs’ appeal was premature. We hold, therefore, on the facts of this case, that the decision of the siting council granting KELP a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need was a final decision within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183, and that the trial court had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ appeal therefrom.

Section 4-183 does not permit an appeal from an agency letter that fails to qualify as a final decision.

Housing Authority v. Papandrea · filed 1992-06-04

Because the commissioner’s letter did not comply with the requirements set forth in § 4-176 (f) and (h) as to the mailing and contents of a declaratory ruling, however, we are persuaded that it did not constitute a final decision for purposes of appeal pursuant to § 4-183.

Section 4-183(b) provides a direct appeal from a DPUC decision; a party who fails to take that appeal cannot challenge the decision through an independent civil action.

Francini v. Unionville Water Company, No. Cv91-0446447 (Dec. 19, 1991) · filed 1991-12-19(b)

The plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedy by taking a direct appeal from the DPUC decision to the Superior Court as is provided by the Administrative Procedures Act, Connecticut General Statutes section 4-183 (b). This court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy and is required, therefore, to dismiss the action.

Section 4-183 applies to appeals from inland wetlands commissions to the Superior Court, including appeals outside contested cases, but does not govern proceedings before the commissions.

Klug v. Inland Wetlands Commission · filed 1993-01-19

While expanding its application to all appeals from the commission rather than merely to “contested cases,” the amendment to § 4-183 did not operate to make the UAPA applicable to proceedings of the commission itself.

Section 4-183(a) permits an administrative appeal only from a final decision in a contested case; a hearing held without a statutory hearing requirement does not create that right to appeal.

Summit Hydropower Partnership v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection · filed 1993-08-03(a)

If the plaintiff’s rights or privileges were not statutorily required to be determined by the agency in a hearing or after an opportunity for a hearing, a “contested case” would not exist and the plaintiff would have no right to appeal pursuant to § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183 permits an appeal from a final decision in a contested case; a permit denial is not appealable when the governing law does not require a hearing or an opportunity for one.

Fraenza v. Keeney · filed 1994-02-11

While a hearing was in fact held on the plaintiff’s application in the present case, § 22a-361 does not require that the plaintiff’s right to a structures and dredging permit be determined after a hearing or an opportunity for a hearing. Accordingly, under Summit Hydropower, the proceeding wherein the plaintiff’s application for a structures and dredging permit was denied did not constitute a contested case under § 4-166 (2) and, therefore, the commissioner’s decision with respect to that permit was not a final decision from which the plaintiff has a right to appeal pursuant to § 4-183.

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal only from a final agency decision; a decision outside a contested case is not appealable under it.

Parcc, Inc. v. Connecticut Comm'n, Hosp, No. Cv94-310124s (Jun. 16, 1994) · filed 1994-06-16(a)

Therefore since the present case is not a contested case, the commission's decision to deny the plaintiff's application for an exception to Public Act 93-406 was not a final CT Page 6712 decision from which the plaintiff had a right to appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183 limits administrative appeals to agency decisions or orders in contested cases.

Ratick Combustion, Inc. v. State Heating, Piping & Cooling Work Examining Board · filed 1994-04-12

Administrative appeals are limited by § 4-183 to agency decisions or orders in contested cases.

Section 4-183(a) allows an aggrieved person to appeal a final agency decision after exhausting available administrative remedies.

Londregan v. Freedom of Information Commission, No. 52 61 05 (Jul. 18, 1994) · filed 1994-07-18(a)

"A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the superior court as provided in this section." General Statutes § 4-183 (a). It is clear that each of the Commission's decisions constitutes "a final decision" for purposes of General Statutes § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183 permits an appeal only from a final agency decision, which requires a contested case with a statutory right to a hearing.

Newington Children's v. Comm. on H. H., No. Cv 93 053 14 94 (Oct. 5, 1994) · filed 1994-10-05

One of those provisions is, of course, that the subject of the appeal be a "final decision." That provision, in turn, invokes the § 4-166 definition of "final decision" and the concomitant requirement that there be a statutory right to a hearing.

Section 4-183 does not permit judicial review of an agency's refusal to hold a hearing when no statute requires that hearing and the refusal is not a contested case.

Orsi v. Senatore, No. 750239 (Aug. 26, 1994) · filed 1994-08-26(a)

In this case the plaintiffs have no statutory right to an administrative removal hearing. Therefore, the Commissioner's decision to deny the plaintiffs such a hearing is not a contested case and this court cannot review that decision.

Section 4-183(b) permits an appeal from a preliminary agency ruling only if postponing review until a final decision would result in an inadequate remedy.

Reardon v. Dep't., Pub. H. Add. Serv., No. Cv 94 070 52 32 (Sep. 22, 1994) · filed 1994-09-22(b)

For all of the reasons set forth above, the court concludes that the plaintiff has not shown that postponement of his appeal until the board has rendered a final decision in his case will result in an inadequate remedy, within the meaning of § 4-183 (b).

Section 4-183 does not permit an appeal from a labor board decision to hold a representation election and decertify a union.

Civil Serv. Emp. v. Bd. of Labor Rel., No. Cv 93 053 12 71 (Oct. 18, 1994) · filed 1994-10-18

For all of the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that the defendant board's decision to hold the election and decertify the plaintiff union is not appealable to this court under General Statutes §§ 4-183 and 31-109 (d).

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal from an agency decision that imposes concrete legal obligations, even if related matters remain unresolved.

State v. State Employees' Review Board · filed 1994-12-06(a)

In determining whether an administrative decision is “final” for the purposes of § 4-183 (a), we look first to our statutes governing such determinations. ... Although the review board decision may leave open final resolution of Cawley’s rights with respect to his employment, certain obligations of public safety and administrative services have been finally resolved and concrete legal responsibilities have been placed upon these agencies. This takes the review board decision out of the realm of the abstract and creates a finality for which the UAPA provides an appellate process.

Section 4-183 does not permit an appeal from a State Board of Mediation and Arbitration award because the board is exempt from the section.

Town of Stratford v. Bd. of Med./arb., No. Cv94 31 38 87 S (Oct. 19, 1994) · filed 1994-10-19

The appellants do not have a right to appeal from the arbitration decision under General Statutes § 4-183 . The board is specifically exempted from § 4-183 by General Statutes § 4-186 (c).

Section 4-183’s procedural provisions govern appeals authorized by § 14-311(e), even though that section does not require an administrative hearing.

Town of Newington v. State Traffic Comm., No. Cv930525743 (Jan. 5, 1995) · filed 1995-01-05

In this case, the provisions of the two statutes in question may be reconciled by construing the phrase "in accordance with the provisions of section 4-183 ," as it appears in § 14-311 (e), to mean that only the procedural provisions of § 4-183 apply to appeals taken under § 14-311 .

Section 4-183 does not permit an administrative appeal when the agency was not required to hold a hearing and no contested case arose.

Newington Ch. H. v. Comm. on H. H. Care, No. Cv930531494s (Feb. 10, 1995) · filed 1995-02-10

Because no hearing was either required or held, this appeal cannot be raised as a contested case either under § 19a-167c(c), supra, or § 4-183 , supra.

Section 4-183 permits an administrative appeal only from a final decision in a contested case; a party must have a statutory right to an agency hearing for the decision here to qualify.

City of Stamford v. Ferrandino, No. Cv 94 0137023 (Jun 2, 1995) · filed 1995-06-02(a)

They claim and the court agrees that an administrative appeal to the superior court is available only in a "contested case" in which the agency rendering the decision was required by statute to hold a hearing.

A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of a preliminary appeal under § 4-183(b) is a final, appealable judgment because it ends the right to that appeal.

Reardon v. Department of Public Health & Addiction Services · filed 1995-05-02(b)

Section 4-183 (b) provided the plaintiff the right to a preliminary appeal from the board’s denial of his motion to dismiss the charges against him. In dismissing the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court finally concluded the plaintiff’s right to appeal under § 4-183 (b). If not considered by this court now, any right the plaintiff has to an intermediate appeal will be lost. For these reasons we conclude that the plaintiff has appealed from a final judgment.

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal only from a final agency decision in a contested case.

Town of Monroe v. Department of Liquor, No. Cv 950547141 (May 22, 1995) · filed 1995-05-22(a)

Accordingly, the department's order granting such permission was not a "final decision" appealable under § 4-183 .

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal to the Superior Court only from a final agency decision; reconsideration does not make an otherwise nonfinal decision appealable.

Derwin v. State Employees Retirement Commission · filed 1995-07-25(a)

The appealability of an agency decision is governed by § 4-183 (a) of the UAPA, which provides that “[a] person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the superior court as provided in this section.” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, we have consistently held that the Superior Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from a “final decision” of an administrative agency.

When an agency issues a decision after reconsideration, that decision is final for purposes of appeal under § 4-183(a); the original decision is not.

Klinger v. Real Estate Commission, No. Cv 910324605 (Aug. 16, 1995) · filed 1995-08-16(a)

When an administrative agency renders a decision after reconsideration in accordance with § 4-181a , that decision becomes the final decision for purposes of appeals brought under § 4-183 . The original decision that was the subject of the reconsideration may be incorporated in whole or in part in the new decision, but the original decision is not the final decision in such a case.

Section 4-183 permits judicial review only of a final agency decision in a contested case.

Dressler v. Commissioner of Social Ser., No. Cv 94 054 31 68 (Oct. 16, 1995) · filed 1995-10-16

For the reasons set forth above, the court concludes that this case is not a "contested case" within the meaning of General Statutes §§ 4-166 and 4-183 . The court does not have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's appeal, therefore.

Section 4-183 did not give the court jurisdiction over this appeal because the plaintiff lacked a statutory right to a hearing; the appeal right established by Public Act 95-355 did not apply retroactively.

Toise v. Rowe, No. Cv 940535403s (Aug. 2, 1995) · filed 1995-08-02

Finally Public Act 95-355 clearly establishes jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183 for an appeal, if the party is aggrieved by the final decision after the opportunity for a hearing, effective Oct. 1, 1995. A review of the language of the Act does not indicate that it is to be applied retroactively. Without such language this court's decision to dismiss this matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will not be affected.

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal to the Superior Court only by a person aggrieved by an agency final decision who has exhausted available administrative remedies.

Bernier v. Commissioner of Health Services, No. 531460 (Sep. 18, 1995) · filed 1995-09-18(a)

Under General Statutes § 4-183 (a), "[a] person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the superior court as provided in this section." Thus, our Supreme Court has consistently held that "the Superior Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from a `final decision' of an administrative agency." Derwin v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 234 Conn. 411 , 418 , ___ A.2d ___ (1995).

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal from a final decision, but an agency’s decision not to issue a declaratory ruling does not provide a basis for appeal.

Town of New Milford v. Commissioner, No. Cv 95 054 78 64 (Sep. 19, 1995) · filed 1995-09-19(a)

The court finds, therefore, that the commissioner's decision is not a declaratory ruling pursuant to General Statutes § 4-176 (e)(1), but rather a decision not to issue a declaratory ruling pursuant to General Statutes § 4-176 (e)(5). Accordingly, the decision is not a "final decision" as defined in General Statutes § 4-166 and fails to provide the basis for an appeal CT Page 11111 under General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal only by a party aggrieved by a final agency decision; an action is not a final decision when no hearing was held or required.

Connecticut Res. Rec. Aut. v. Dep. of Env., No. Cv95-0544912 (May 1, 1996) · filed 1996-05-01(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) provides for a right of appeal only to a party "who is aggrieved by a final decision" of an administrative agency.

Section 4-183(a) authorizes an appeal to Superior Court only from a final agency decision.

Norfleet v. State, No. 128596 (May 10, 1996) · filed 1996-05-10(a)

The decision, although entitled "Notice of Final Decision," was not a final decision under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act Sections 4-166 et seq. from which an appeal to the Superior court is authorized under 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal to the Superior Court only from an agency’s final decision; a preliminary refusal to reopen a decision is not appealable.

Town of Fairfield v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 1996-07-30(a)

Accordingly, we conclude that the proceeding on the plaintiffs’ motions under § 4-181a (b) did not give rise to a contested case within the meaning of the UAPA and, therefore, that the council’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motions was not appealable to the Superior Court.

A timely served and filed administrative appeal that complies with § 4-183 is within the Superior Court's jurisdiction even when filed as an amendment to a defective injunction action.

Walnut St. Serv. v. Comm. of Motor Veh., No. Cv 96 056 20 83 (Nov. 6, 1996) · filed 1996-11-06

The only question concerning the plaintiff's appeal arises from the fact that it hitchhikes into court as an "amendment" to the defective injunction action. This flaw in procedure, however, if it be one, is not of jurisdictional significance. ... In effect, the plaintiff has timely served and filed an appeal under § 4-183 that, standing alone, is unquestionably subject to the jurisdiction of this court.

Section 4-183(b) does not permit an appeal from a preliminary agency ruling when the appellant does not appear qualified to appeal the agency’s final decision.

Medtrans Conn. v. Dep't of Public Hlth., No. Cv 960566301 (Dec. 30, 1996) · filed 1996-12-30(b)

It does not appear, therefore, that the plaintiff here would be aggrieved and thus qualified to appeal the department's final decision on Hunter's application. For that reason, the plaintiff's present appeal does not meet the first requirement of subsection (b) of § 4-183 .

Section 4-183 does not authorize an appeal from an agency decision when no statute required a hearing on that decision.

Toise v. Rowe · filed 1997-01-21(a)

Prior to the amendment of § 17b-650, there was no hearing required by statute and, therefore, pursuant to § 4-183, no right to appeal the decisions of the bureau or its director.

Section 4-183(a) allows an aggrieved person who has exhausted agency remedies to appeal a final agency decision, but provides no appeal from the denial of a motion to reopen.

Campion Ambulance Service v. Medstar Inc., No. Cv 92 0111175 (Apr. 10, 1997) · filed 1997-04-10(a)

The appealability of an agency decision is governed by General Statutes § 4-183 (a), found in chapter 54, which provides that `"[a] person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the superior court as provided in this section."' ... No statutory appeal process exists regarding the agency's denial of the plaintiffs' motion to reopen.

Section 4-183(a) permits an aggrieved person to appeal a final agency decision in a contested case, including a liquor permit ruling after a required hearing.

Loulis v. Liquor Control Commission, No. 320627 (Jul. 8, 1997) · filed 1997-07-08(a)

Since a hearing was required, and in fact was held, the Commission's ruling was a "final decision" on a contested case which was appealable under General Statutes § 4-183 (a) by anyone aggrieved by that decision.

An association may appeal an agency’s final decision under § 4-183 when its members have standing, the claim is germane to their interests, and the relief does not require individual members to participate.

Connecticut Ass'n of Not-for-Profit Providers for Aging v. Department of Social Services · filed 1998-03-31(a)

We subsequently concluded that the Worrell rationale was not limited solely to declaratory judgment actions brought directly to the Superior Court pursuant to § 4-175, and that it is to be applied with equal force to any administrative appeal brought pursuant to § 4-183. ... The plaintiff, therefore, has standing to bring this petition and to pursue its appeal from the final decision of the department denying that petition.

Section 4-183(b) allows an appeal from a preliminary agency action, including denial of intervention, when the person appears likely to qualify to appeal the final agency action.

Connecticut Post v. New Haven City, No. Cv X01 99 0160333 (Sep. 22, 2000) · filed 2000-09-22(b)

The Connecticut Administrative Procedure Act, at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183 (b), provides for appeal of a preliminary, procedural or intermediate agency action, such as denial of intervention, if "it appears likely that the person will otherwise qualify under this chapter to appeal from the final agency action or ruling." The availability of appeal of final decisions by § 22a-19 (a) intervenors, confirmed in the cases cited above, leads to the conclusion that appeal is also available for alleged denial of intervention.