Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183

Section 4-183(b) permits an interlocutory appeal of an agency ruling when the party is likely to qualify to appeal the final ruling and postponement would leave an inadequate remedy.

Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Human Rights Referee · filed 2001-10-09(b)

General Statutes § 4-183 (b) reflects the principle that the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to the Superior Court’s jurisdiction absent exceptional circumstances. ... For the reasons detailed in this opinion, the exhaustion doctrine does not apply because the commission will be aggrieved by the final decision of the agency and the pursuit of an administrative remedy would be useless.

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal from an agency’s final decision, so expanding the definition of a contested case expands the right to appeal.

Town of Middlebury v. Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2007-07-17(a)

Accordingly, a statutory amendment that expands the definition of a contested case plainly expands the right of appeal under § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183(b) does not permit an interlocutory appeal when the party can obtain an adequate remedy after the agency proceeding; having to participate in that proceeding is insufficient absent a colorable claim of immunity.

Stamford v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, Office of Public Hearings · filed 2025-02-25(b)

We conclude that the referee’s ruling granting the complainant leave to amend his complaint was not an appealable preliminary agency action or ruling pursuant to § 4-183 (b).

Section 4-183(a) provides for appeals of final CHRO decisions to the Connecticut Superior Court.

Rosa v. Human Rights and Opportunities · filed 2022-09-22(a)

The proper avenue by which to appeal a decision of the CHRO is through the Connecticut Superior Courts, not the federal courts. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-183(a).

Section 4-183(a) permits an aggrieved person to appeal a final agency decision; suspension of an operator’s license establishes aggrievement.

Dowling v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. 098255 (Apr. 25, 1991) · filed 1991-04-25(a)

As in all administrative appeals, the court must rule on the plaintiff's aggrievement before proceeding further. See General Statutes Section 4-183 (a) (appeal may be taken by person aggrieved by final decision of administrative agency). Aggrievement requires a showing that a party's specific, personal and legal interest has been specially and injuriously affected by the administrative decision. ... The suspension of the plaintiff's license to drive satisfies the criteria for aggrievement.

Section 4-183(a) treats the suspension of a motor vehicle operator’s license as aggrievement that permits an appeal.

Marshall v. Delponte · filed 1991-05-14(a)

In order for the plaintiff to be properly before this court he must be an aggrieved person within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183 (a) in that a specific, personal and legal interest of his has been adversely affected by the defendant’s decision. The suspension of his motor vehicle operator’s license is aggrievement under the statute.

Section 4-183(a) permits a person whose driver's license has been suspended to appeal as an aggrieved person.

Ruszyk v. State Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, No. 09 56 16 (Sep. 27, 1991) · filed 1991-09-27(a)

One whose license is suspended pursuant to Section 14-227b "is an aggrieved person within the meaning of General Statutes Section 4-183 (a) in that a specific, personal and legal interest, his license to drive, has been adversely affected." Tarascio v. Muzio, 40 Conn. Sup. 505 , 507 (1986). Therefore, the plaintiff is aggrieved.

Section 4-183(a) permits a person whose driver's license was suspended to appeal as an aggrieved person.

Scranton v. Department of Motor Vehicles, No. 44545 (Oct. 15, 1991) · filed 1991-10-15(a)

Only those persons aggrieved by a final decision of the agency may appeal. General Statutes Section 4-183 (a). ... The court finds that the plaintiff is aggrieved.

Section 4-183(a) permits a driver whose license was suspended under Section 14-227b to appeal as an aggrieved person.

Billings v. Goldberg, No. 518565 (Apr. 30, 1992) · filed 1992-04-30(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.

Under the version of § 4-183(b) in effect in June 1977, an administrative appeal had to be filed in the county where the aggrieved person resided; that venue requirement was jurisdictional.

Farricielli v. Connecticut Personnel Appeal Board · filed 1982-02-09(b)

Moreover, our conclusion that the provisions of § 4-183 (b), as it was when the plaintiff took his appeal, were mandatory and not directory, is buttressed by the fact that § 4-183 selectively used the words "shall" and "may" in a number of its subsections.

Section 4-183(b) sets no return day for an administrative appeal; the two-month limit in § 52-48(b) applies.

Haylett v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1988-05-24(b)

No reference to a return day is contained in § 4-183 (b).

The 1988 changes to § 4-183(b) apply prospectively, so an appeal commenced before July 1, 1989, cannot use the new amendment provisions to cure failure to cite and serve necessary parties.

Fee v. Carothers · filed 1990-10-23(b)

Since the plaintiffs appeal was served on June 14, 1989, it was “commenced” before July 1,1989, and the provisions of Public Acts 1988, No. 88-317, do not apply. ... The plaintiff’s attempts to amend his appeal will not suffice to save it under General Statutes § 4-183 as it existed at the time of the appeal.

Under § 4-183(b), an imperfect citation does not require dismissal when the appeal papers give the agency notice and it shows no prejudice.

McQuillan v. Department of Liquor Control · filed 1990-12-18(b)

The dispositive issue, therefore, is whether the plaintiffs’ administrative appeal in fact failed to include the citation required by § 4-183 (b). ... Since the department has raised no claim of prejudice, the plaintiffs’ inadvertent deviation from the preferred Practice Book form did not deprive the citation that they employed of all legal effect.

Section 4-183(c)(1) does not require a citation in an administrative appeal.

Klopp v. Commissioner, Department of Income Maintenance · filed 1993-08-03(c)(1)

It follows therefore that, because § 4-183 (c) (1) does not require a citation, the trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiffs appeal on this basis.

Section 4-183(c)(1)'s mail service procedure does not apply to sales and use tax appeals from decisions of the revenue commissioner.

Jade Aircraft Sales, Inc. v. Crystal · filed 1994-01-03(c)(1)

Jade served the citation and complaint by United States mail pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (c) (1), a provision of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA). This was done in spite of the fact that appeals from the decisions of the commissioner are expressly exempted from the UAPA.

An incorrect return day in an administrative appeal under § 4-183 may be amended after the return day has passed and a motion to dismiss has been filed.

Cipillaro v. S.O.C. Corp., No. Cv93 0134583 (Jan. 3, 1995) · filed 1995-01-03(c)

This court therefore concludes that the holding of the Supreme Court in Concept Associates, Ltd., supra, that process made returnable to the wrong return day is amendable even after the return day has passed and after a motion to dismiss has been filed is equally applicable to administrative appeals taken under § 4-183 .

An administrative appeal under § 4-183 with an incorrect return day may be amended after that day has passed, even after a motion to dismiss has been filed.

Cipollaro v. S.O.C. Corporation, No. Cv93-0134583s (Jan. 4, 1995) · filed 1995-01-04(c)

This court therefore concludes that the holding of the Supreme Court in Concept Associates, Ltd., supra, that process made returnable to the wrong return day is amendable even after the return day has passed and after a motion to dismiss has been filed is equally applicable to administrative appeals taken under § 4-183 .

A missing return date does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction over an administrative appeal; dismissal depends on prejudice to the agency.

In Re Dawn F., (Jun. 5, 1998) · filed 1998-06-05(d)

Thus, the court finds the failure to include a return date does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, the court does not find that DCF has been prejudiced by the lack of a return date nor has DCF claimed prejudice.

Section 4-183’s venue requirement is not jurisdictional.

Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. City of New London · filed 2007-07-03(b)

There simply is no evidence that, in enacting the venue provision of § 4-183, the legislature intended to abrogate the common understanding that venue is not jurisdictional.

Section 4-183(b) requires service on every party of record in an administrative appeal, even if the party is neither necessary nor adverse.

Borough of Newtown v. Department of Public Utility Control · filed 1985-03-26(b)

Section 4-183 (b) requires that “all parties of record” be served with a copy of the petition. ... Nothing in that definition supports the argument that a “party” must be either necessary or have an interest which is adverse to others who could be parties to the appeal. Since the DCC was a party to the administrative proceedings, it was a party of record within the scope of § 4-183 (b) and should have been cited as a party defendant.

Section 4-183(b) permits service of an appeal petition on the CHRO commission without separately serving the hearing officer.

Catholic Family & Community Services v. Commission on Human Rights · filed 1985-04-02(b)

The construction of “agency” as used in General Statutes § 4-183 (b) to mean “hearing officer” would contravene General Statutes § 4-166 (1) which defines an agency as a state commission or an officer authorized by law to determine contested cases. The use of the disjunctive “or” in that statutory section makes it clear that, at the very least, service upon the commission by the plaintiff was sufficient to withstand the jurisdictional attack which the defendant made.

Section 4-183(b) does not require a hearing board appointed by the state department of education to be named and served in an administrative appeal because the board is not an agency.

Board of Education v. Department of Education · filed 1986-01-28(b)

It was not necessary to name and serve the hearing board under General Statutes § 4-183 (b) because the hearing board is not an agency within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-166 (1) for purposes of appeal under the UAPA.

Section 4-183(b) does not require service of an administrative appeal petition on a CHRO hearing examiner because the examiner is not the agency.

Chestnut Realty, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1986-09-02(b)

The Appellate Court in Catholic Family & Community Services v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 3 Conn. App. 464, 466-68, 489 A.2d 408 (1985), specifically held that a hearing examiner appointed by the CHRO was not an “agency” under General Statutes § 4-183 (b) and therefore did not have to be served with the plaintiffs petition. ... We adopt the reasoning of the Appellate Court on this issue and conclude that the trial court was correct in not dismissing the appeal.

Section 4-183 requires an appeal to cite the agency that made the decision; citing its supervisory department instead leaves the court without jurisdiction.

Nanavati v. Department of Health Services · filed 1986-03-18

General Statutes § 4-183 requires the party who is appealing an agency’s decision to include with his petition for appeal a proper citation. ... The board’s actions, therefore, are reviewable under the UAPA but the appeal must cite it, and not its supervisory umbrella department.

Section 4-183(c)’s forty-five-day appeal period applies only when the underlying agency proceeding commenced on or after July 1, 1989.

Vernon Village, Inc. v. Carothers · filed 1991-01-15(c)

We are likewise unpersuaded that the legislature intended § 23 (c) of the act to be immediately applicable on July 1,1989, by virtue of the term “agency proceedings” embodied in § 24 (a) and the second clause of § 107.

Under the version of § 4-183(b) then in effect, service on a party of record required a valid citation directing that party to appear; notice alone did not suffice.

Shapiro v. Carothers · filed 1990-09-11(b)

While it is true that the defendant’s citation appeared on the same sheet as the defective citation directed to the CFE, and thus the CFE had notice of when and where the appeal was to be heard, this was not enough to-satisfy § 4-183 (b).

Section 4-183(c) permits service of an appeal on the agency at its office or at the attorney general’s Hartford office; personal service on the commissioner is unnecessary.

Botchis v. Aronson, No. 515360 (Jun. 28, 1991) · filed 1991-06-28(c)

Connecticut General Statutes Section 4-183 (c) requires the plaintiff to "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." (emphasis added) It was not necessary for the plaintiff to personally serve the Commissioner.

Section 4-183(b) requires service of an administrative appeal petition on the agency and all parties of record; failure to serve those parties properly makes the appeal subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Ertel v. Carothers · filed 1994-04-05(b)

“The appeal provisions of the statute are jurisdictional in nature”; Basilicato v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 197 Conn. 320, 324, 497 A.2d 48 (1985); thus, the failure of the plaintiff to comply strictly with the mandates of General Statutes (Rev. to 1989 as in effect until July 1, 1989) § 4-183 (b) and General Statutes § 52-57 (a) and (c) renders the appeal subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court.

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

Stravalli v. Commissioner of Motor Veh., No. Cv93 070 46 40 (Apr. 26, 1994) · filed 1994-04-26(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) provides that an appeal of an administrative decision must be served on all parties of record "(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 serve an appeal within the statutory time period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(c) requires service on the agency that rendered the final decision; serving another agency does not suffice, and failure to serve the deciding agency requires dismissal of the administrative appeal.

Town of Redding v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 1997-07-08(c)

Here, however, the plaintiff failed to serve the siting council, the agency that rendered the final decision. Section 4-183 (c) mandates that the administrative appeal cannot be brought at all if the party fails to make such service.

Section 4-183 requires an appellant to cite the agency whose decision is being appealed as a party defendant; failure to do so deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Allen v. State Corrections Department, No. Cv 99 0496851s (Oct. 27, 1999) · filed 1999-10-27

The court has no jurisdiction over this appeal as the plaintiff has failed to cite the Freedom of Information Commission as a party defendant.

Section 4-183(e) permits the court to retain jurisdiction when it orders notice to an unserved interested party who was not named as a defendant.

Yellow Cab Co. of New London & Groton, Inc. v. Department of Transportation · filed 2011-03-08(e)

We conclude, therefore, that the court retained jurisdiction to issue a decision in the underlying action when it ordered that Foltz be served with notice pursuant to § 4-183 (e).

Section 4-183 requires timely service of an administrative appeal on the agency that made the final decision; failure to serve that agency deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Berka v. City of Middletown · filed 2018-04-17(d)

Accordingly, the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dis- miss the plaintiff’s administrative appeal due to the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the department.

Section 4-183 requires the CHRO to serve the agency whose final decision it appeals, even when that agency is the CHRO itself.

Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Cantillon · filed 2021-09-21

General Statutes § 4-183 requires the CHRO, in such instances, to serve the agency that rendered the final decision. In the present case, the CHRO appealed the decision of its own human rights referee and thus named and served itself as defendant.

Section 4-183(b) requires a petition served by mail to be sent to the agency commissioner’s office or the attorney general’s office; mailing it elsewhere does not validly serve the agency.

DelVecchio v. Department of Income Maintenance · filed 1989-03-28(b)

In such cases, the statute mandates that the petition be mailed “to the office of the commissioner of the agency or to the office of the attorney general in Hartford.” ... Neither addressee is the office of the commissioner of the department of income maintenance or the office of the attorney general. Accordingly, there has been no valid service upon the department of income maintenance and the trial court was correct in dismissing the appeal.

Before its 1988 amendment, § 4-183(b) required service of an administrative appeal on all parties of record within thirty days after notice of the agency’s decision was mailed.

Citizens Against Pollution Northwest, Inc. v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 1991-01-15(b)

Since CAP failed to serve copies of its administrative appeal upon all parties of record within thirty days of the mailing of the council’s decision as required by § 4-183 (b) prior to its revision by the act, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the appeal.

Under the version of § 4-183 in effect before July 1, 1989, an appellant had to serve the agency and all parties of record within thirty days after receiving notice of the agency’s decision; failure to do so deprived the Superior Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Scinto v. State Codes & Standards Committee · filed 1991-02-05(b)

The plaintiffs were required to serve the agency and all parties of record within thirty days after receiving notice of the agency’s decision. General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 4-183. The plaintiffs conceded in their brief before this court that they failed to meet this requirement and served the defendant more than thirty days after receiving notice of the defendant’s decision. Thus, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Under the former § 4-183(b), an appellant had to serve the agency within thirty days after notice of its decision, and failure to do so deprived the court of jurisdiction.

Raines v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1992-03-24(b)

It is undisputed that the plaintiff failed to serve a copy of his appeal on the FOIC within thirty days of the mailing of the decision, as required by § 4-183 (b) prior to its revision by the act. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Miller v. Conservation Commission · filed 1992-05-19(c)

The filing requirement is clearly set forth in § 4-183 (c), which requires filing of the appeal within forty-five days of the mailing of the commission’s decision. ... We hold that the trial court properly dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Under the applicable version of § 4-183, an appeal had to be served within thirty days after the agency mailed its final decision; without evidence of the mailing date, the court could not find service untimely.

DeMilo & Co. v. Department of Transportation · filed 1993-08-05

Prior to the enactment of No. 88-317 of the 1988 Public Acts, § 4-183 required the appeal to be served on the agency “within thirty days after mailing” of the agency’s final decision. That timetable applies to this case. ... Since, as the court has found, there is no evidence of the precise date when the final decision was mailed by the agency, the court cannot determine when the statutory time period for service of the appeal commenced. It follows that the court cannot find that the plaintiff failed to serve its appeal within that period. The commissioner’s motion to dismiss must, therefore, be denied.

Personal service of an administrative appeal under § 4-183(c)(2) requires a citation.

Co-Operative Cit. Mon. v. Pub. Util. Cont., No. Cv94 0364861 (Jun. 21, 1995) · filed 1995-06-21(c)(2)

Further, the appeal was not served in accordance with § 4-183 (c)(2) because it lacked a citation.

Section 4-183(c) requires service of an administrative appeal within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; failure to serve within that period deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Schuss v. Department of Social Services, No. Cv 94 053 95 64 (Aug. 23, 1995) · filed 1995-08-23(c)

Based on the evidence, or lack thereof, summarized above, the court finds that the plaintiff did not serve CT Page 9252 a copy of the appeal on the defendant department within the forty-five day period required by § 4-183 . Accordingly, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

Failure to file the required proof of service is a defect in process that does not warrant dismissal absent prejudice to the agency.

Fuentes v. Connecticut Med. Exam. Board, No. Cv 95 055 27 80 (Oct. 23, 1995) · filed 1995-10-23(d)

The board's second asserted ground for its motion to dismiss the appeal is that the plaintiffs failed to file the proof of service required by § 4-183 (d). This is, at most, a defect in process that is governed by the Tolly rule and does not, in this case, afford a basis for dismissing the appeal.

Section 4-183(d) gives the court discretion to excuse a late affidavit of service when all parties and the agency were served on time.

George v. A.D.P. Corporation, No. Cv95 0051590s (Jan. 19, 1996) · filed 1996-01-19(d)

Where, as here, timely service was made on all parties and the agency, the court finds that the discretion given to the court also applies to a late filing of the affidavit under § 4-183 (d), and not just for failure to make service on parties other than the agency.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appellant to serve the agency that made the final decision and file the appeal in the specified Superior Court judicial district.

Dyno New England, Inc. v. Town of Brookfield, No. 31 93 64 (Mar. 26, 1996) · filed 1996-03-26(c)

Specifically, General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides that a person appealing must 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 for the Judicial District of Hartford or for the judicial district wherein the person appealing resides.

Section 4-183(d) permits dismissal for defects in a timely served appeal, including a missing citation or return date, only upon a showing of prejudice to the agency.

Citizens for Economic v. Dep't of Ins., No. Cv 960563368 (Oct. 15, 1996) · filed 1996-10-15(d)

Applying the reasoning of the Tolly decision to the facts of the present case, the court concludes that the defects in the process cited by the defendants and summarized above do not implicate the court's subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, they render the appeal dismissable only upon a showing of prejudice to the insurance department.

Section 4-183 requires service on the agency within forty-five days; mailing within that period alone is insufficient.

Bittle v. Commissioner, No. Cv 950379527s (Apr. 22, 1997) · filed 1997-04-22

General Statutes § 4-183 requires service upon the agency "within" forty-five days. Mailing alone within forty-five days is not enough.

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

Ayres v. Comm. on Human Rights Opp., No. Cv97 034 17 88s (Jul. 8, 1997) · filed 1997-07-08(c)

However, the plaintiff did not file her appeal in the superior court until March 27, 1997, fifty-five days after the CHRO denied her request for reconsideration on January 31, 1997. Thus, even if the court assumes that the forty-five day appeal period began to run on January 31, 1997, the plaintiff still filed her appeal too late. The plaintiff having failed to satisfy § 4-183 (c), the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal.

Section 4-183 requires an appellant to serve the agency and file the appeal in court within forty-five days after the final decision is mailed; missing either deadline deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Campbell v. Commission on Human Rights, No. Cv97 0568699 (Nov. 25, 1997) · filed 1997-11-25

Section 4-183 requires an appellant to both serve a copy of the appeal on the agency and file the appeal with the court within forty-five days of the mailing of the final decision. Plaintiff has failed to serve the agency at all and did not file this appeal until June 17, 1997. In interpreting § 4-183 our Supreme Court has indicated that a failure to comply with either forty-five day requirement deprives the Superior Court of jurisdiction over the administrative appeal.

Failure to file the affidavit of service required by § 4-183(d) does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction; it warrants dismissal only if the defendant was prejudiced.

Leake v. Commissioner of Consumer Prot., No. Cv98-0061494s (Mar. 25, 1999) · filed 1999-03-25(d)

The plaintiff, however, has failed to file an affidavit attesting how service was made as required by General Statutes § 4-183 (d). The failure to provide an affidavit attesting to service, however, does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the case. ... Rather, failure to file proof of service is a defect in process that is cause for dismissal only if the defendant has been prejudiced.

Section 4-183(c) requires service of an administrative appeal on the agency within 45 days after the final decision is mailed; late service deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Johnny's Auto Sales v. Commissioner, No. Cv 99 0496645s (Aug. 17, 1999) · filed 1999-08-17(c)

General Statutes § 4-183 (c) provides in pertinent part that: "Within forty-five days after mailing of the final decision . . ., a person appealing . . . shall serve a copy of the appeal on the agency. . . ." ... The court finds that the final decision was mailed by May 14, 1999, the date upon which it was received by plaintiffs attorney. Thus, the service was beyond the 45 days mandated by statute. The court is without jurisdiction to entertain an administrative appeal which was not both filed and served within the statutory period.

A party must comply with § 4-183 to bring its own appeal, but may join an appeal another party has already brought.

University of Conn. v. Dep., Pub. Ut., No. Cv 99 04978265 (Mar. 24, 2000) · filed 2000-03-24

It is true that OCC's special status under § 16-2a does not entitle it to bring an appeal without complying with § 4-183 . Once another party has appealed, however, this court sees no impediment to OCC moving to be made a party on either side of the dispute.

Section 4-183(c) requires an administrative appeal to be served and filed within forty-five days after the agency mails its decision; failure to do both deprives the court of jurisdiction.

Taylor v. State Board of Mediation & Arbitration · filed 1999-08-24(c)

We agree with the trial court that § 4-183 (c) requires that an administrative appeal be both served on the opposing parties in the manner specified by the statute and filed with the clerk of the Superior Court within forty-five days after the agency has mailed its decision. Failure to serve and file an appeal within the forty-five days allowed by the UAPA deprives the court of jurisdiction over the appeal.

Section 4-183(c) requires timely service on the agency, but a defect in appeal papers served within 45 days does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Tirella v. Region 16 School District, No. Cv99 0065305s (Nov. 16, 1999) · filed 1999-11-16(c)

The court's subject matter jurisdiction is implicated only if there was a total failure to serve the State Department of Education within the statutory 45 day period, and not if there is merely a defect in the document timely served on the agency.

Section 4-183(c)(2) requires a citation when an administrative appeal is served by an indifferent person.

Williams v. State, No. Cv 010506762s (Oct. 11, 2001) · filed 2001-10-11(c)(2)

The problem facing the plaintiff is, however, when § 4-183 (c)(2) service is selected, there must also be a citation.

Section 4-183(c) requires service of an administrative appeal on the agency that issued the final decision or the attorney general within forty-five days; timely service on the agency can preserve the appeal despite an error naming the defendant.

Clark v. Dept. Consumer Protection, No. Cv 01 0510100s (Apr. 3, 2002) · filed 2002-04-03(c)

Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (c), an administrative appeal must be served on the agency tat rendered the final decision or the office of the attorney general within forty-five days of the mailing of the final decision. ... Therefore, the court concludes that service was timely made upon board of examiners within the requisite forty-five days and that the appeal is not defective.

Section 4-183(c) does not deprive the Superior Court of jurisdiction when an unauthorized person serves the appeal papers, the agency receives them on time, and no prejudice is shown.

Kindl v. Department of Social Services · filed 2002-05-07(c)

We conclude, therefore, that the trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiffs appeal. The text of § 4-183 (c), its legislative history and its construction by our Supreme Court persuade us that, in the circumstances of this case, in the absence of a showing of prejudice, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs appeal on its merits.

Section 4-183(c) does not make an omitted citation to an officer a defect in subject matter jurisdiction; the defect warrants dismissal only if a defendant is prejudiced.

Connecticut Natural Gas v. Dpuc, No. Cv 01-0511039 S (Aug. 28, 2002) · filed 2002-08-28(c)

The court adheres to its ruling of November 26, 2001 that such a defect does not implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the court but that instead should result in dismissal only when there is prejudice to a defendant, of which there is none here.

A timely defect in serving an administrative appeal does not deprive the Superior Court of jurisdiction when the agency had notice and suffered no prejudice.

Idlibi v. State Dental Commission · filed 2022-05-17(d)

On this basis, we conclude that the present situation is akin to a defect in the service of process, rather than a total failure to serve the agency.

Section 4-183(i) requires administrative appeals to be heard by the court without a jury.

Tsimbadaros v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No. Cv94-0123213 (Mar. 31, 1995) · filed 1995-03-31(i)

Insofar as this action is in the nature of an administrative appeal, there is no right to a jury trial. General Statutes § 4-183 (i) provides that administrative appeals are to be heard "by the court without a jury."

Section 4-183(i) requires administrative appeals to be heard by the court without a jury.

Tsimbidaros v. State, No. 0128051 (Feb. 1, 1996) · filed 1996-02-01(i)

There is also no right to a jury trial in an administrative appeal. Section 4-183 (i) provides that administrative appeals are to be "conducted by the court without a jury."

Section 4-183 permits a court to treat an administrative error as harmless when only one conclusion is legally possible; otherwise, prejudice to substantial rights calls for remand.

Levy v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities · filed 1996-02-27(j) and (k)

Harmless error analysis is available in the administrative context. The Uniform Administrative Procedure Act provides that if an individual’s substantial rights have been prejudiced, the case should be remanded unless but one conclusion is required by law.

Section 4-183 bars costs against the state except as provided in § 4-184a; attorney's fees were unavailable where the court had not found that the agency acted without substantial justification.

Fairfield Resources Inc. v. Town of Brookfield, No. 31 91 56 (Apr. 25, 1996) · filed 1996-04-25(l)

Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 , the plaintiffs may not recover attorney's fees. General Statutes § 4-183 (1) provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o costs shall be taxed against the state, except as provided in section 4-184a ." General Statutes § 4-184a (b) provides that in "any appeal by an aggrieved person of an agency decision taken in accordance with section 4-183 . . . the court may, in its discretion, award to the prevailing party . . . reasonable fees and expenses in addition to other costs if the court determines that the action of the agency was undertaken without any substantial justification." In the context of this appeal, this court, has not reached the issue of whether Gravius' suspension of Dyno's permit was "undertaken without substantial justification." Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to reasonable fees and expenses in this appeal.

Section 4-183 (j) places the burden on appellants in an administrative appeal to establish that the agency’s decision was improper.

Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Truelove & MacLean, Inc. · filed 1996-07-30(j)

As the plaintiffs in the administrative appeal from the hearing officer’s decision, the commission and the claimant had the burden of establishing that the hearing officer’s refusal to award reinstatement and back pay was improper. See General Statutes § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183(j) requires an appellant to show that an agency decision was procedurally or substantively flawed.

Kalanquin v. Comm'n on Human Rights Opp., No. Cv97 0567909 (Feb. 3, 1998) · filed 1998-02-03(j)

The plaintiff has not met her burden under General Statutes § 4-183 (j) to show that the actions of the CHRO in dismissing her complaint under § 46a-83 (b) were procedurally or substantively flawed.

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

Storrs v. Commissioner of Connecticut Dmv, No. Cv 97 64414 S (June 16, 1998) · filed 1998-06-16(j)(5)

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the commissioner's decision to suspend his operating privilege is "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. General Statutes 4-183 (j)(5). . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 39.

On judicial review, the appellant bears the burden of showing that the agency's decision was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Moore v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv98 0579002 (Jul. 23, 1998) · filed 1998-07-23(j)(5)

In an administrative appeal, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the commissioner's decision to suspend a motor vehicle operating license was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Section 4-183 requires a person appealing an agency decision to show that the decision was clearly erroneous in view of the evidence in the whole record.

Rigby v. Comm'r of Dept. of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv98-0579142 (Aug. 3, 1998) · filed 1998-08-03

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the commissioners decision to suspend her license was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

An appellant must show that an agency decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the whole record.

MacDonald v. Salinas, Com. of Dmv., No. Cv98 0581486 (Dec. 9, 1998) · filed 1998-12-09(j)(5)

In this type of an administrative appeal, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the DMV decision to suspend a motor vehicle operator's license was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.

Section 4-183 provides Superior Court review of an adverse agency declaratory ruling after administrative remedies are exhausted.

Town of Haddam v. Lapointe · filed 1996-08-20(a)

Because the defendant could have appealed any adverse declaratory ruling to the Superior Court pursuant to § 4-183, she was required to seek such a ruling before seeking redress in court.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person to exhaust available administrative remedies before appealing an agency decision to the Superior Court.

Stafford Higgins Ind. v. City of Norwalk, No. Cv 94317449 (Mar. 10, 1997) · filed 1997-03-10(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) provides, in relevant part, 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." ... Because the plaintiffs did not first appeal the alleged violation of the Freedom of Information Act to the Freedom of Information Commission, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this issue.

Section 4-183 requires a party to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing an administrative appeal.

In Re Adoption of Baby Z., (Sep. 19, 1997) · filed 1997-09-19

The Uniform Administrative Procedures Act requires that a party exhaust its administrative remedies in order to have standing to bring an appeal. General Statutes § 4-183 . ... No additional procedure is available to the plaintiffs at the administrative level. Thus, the plaintiffs have no recourse but to appeal the decision of the Board to the appropriate superior court. The exhaustion requirement has been satisfied in this case.

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

Blesso Fire Systems, Inc. v. Ecsu, No. Cv 97 0573356 (Oct. 2, 1997) · filed 1997-10-02(a)

However, "[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. The filing of a petition for reconsideration is not a prerequisite to the filing of such an appeal." General Statutes § 4-183 (a). ... Thus, Blesso failed to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to filing this action.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person to exhaust available agency remedies before appealing to the Superior Court.

Ausburger v. State Employees Retire. Comm., No. Cv 97 63636 S (Feb. 4, 1998) · filed 1998-02-04(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a) provides "(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." ... Unfortunately the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, as the administrative remedies available to the plaintiff have not been exhausted. Hence the court must dismiss this administrative appeal.

Section 4-183(b) requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before Superior Court review unless exceptional circumstances justify an earlier appeal.

Johnson v. Department of Public Health · filed 1998-03-17(b)

The provisions of § 4-183 (b) recognize that exhaustion is required as a prerequisite to the Superior Court’s jurisdiction absent exceptional circumstances.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person to exhaust available administrative remedies before appealing an agency decision; failing to request an available hearing forfeits judicial review.

Winiarski v. Salinas, Commissioner of Dmv., No. Cv98-0578375 (Jun. 22, 1998) · filed 1998-06-22(a)

The UAPA, under which the plaintiff proceeds, specifically provides that "[a] person who has exhausted all administrative rememdies available within the agency . . .may appeal to the Supreme Court. . . ." (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 4-183 (a). ... The plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedy, and has not demonstrated that this case falls within any of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine.

Section 4-183(a) requires a person to exhaust available administrative remedies before appealing an agency decision to the Superior Court.

River Bend A. v. Simsbury Water Poll. C., No. Cv 00-0801052 (Apr. 12, 2001) · filed 2001-04-12(a)

Like the plaintiffs in Cannata, the plaintiffs in the present action only may seek an appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (a) 12 and, therefore, must exhaust all of their administrative remedies before they do so.

Section 4-183(a) does not require a petition for reconsideration before an administrative appeal.

New Haven Police v. State Bd. of Lbr. Rel., No. Cv01-0507762 (Dec. 21, 2001) · filed 2001-12-21(a)

The first, that the union has not moved the labor board to reconsider its decision pursuant to General CT Page 17204 Statutes § 4-181 , is irrelevant to the exhaustion requirement. "The filing of a petition for reconsideration is not a prerequisite to the filing of such an appeal." General Statutes § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183(a) requires a person to await the agency's decision before seeking judicial review.

Perry v. Jarmon, No. Fa-89-092584 (Feb. 1, 2002) · filed 2002-02-01(a)

Thereafter, General Statutes § 4-183 (a) 5 required Jarmon to await the department's decision on his administrative hearing before he sought judicial review.

Section 4-183(a) allows an aggrieved person to seek Superior Court review after exhausting available agency remedies and receiving a final decision.

Mendlinger v. Ostrander, No. Cv 02-0814266-S (Mar. 12, 2002) · filed 2002-03-12(a)

The plaintiff has an adequate remedy in the administrative hearing before the defendant with available Superior Court review pursuant to § 4-183 .

Section 4-183 permits an appeal when an applicant has exhausted administrative remedies and the agency’s rejection is a final decision in a contested case.

Miller's Pond Co., LLC v. Rocque · filed 2002-07-30(a)

Finally, the plaintiff had exhausted its administrative remedies under § 4-183 because the commissioner’s rejection of the application was a final decision in a contested case.

Section 4-183 requires exhaustion of available agency remedies before an appeal to Superior Court.

Graham v. Friedlander · filed 2020-02-04(a)

A plain reading of General Statutes § 4- 183 of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, Gen- eral Statutes § 4-166 et seq., informs us that, prior to bringing a claim in Superior Court, individuals must exhaust all administrative remedies available within the relevant agency.

Section 4-183 requires a party to exhaust available agency remedies before bringing a claim in Superior Court.

Phillips v. Hebron · filed 2020-12-22

Sec- tion 4-183 ‘‘informs us that, prior to bringing a claim in Superior Court, individuals must exhaust all administra- tive remedies available within the relevant agency.’’

Section 4-183 requires a party to exhaust an adequate administrative remedy before the Superior Court has jurisdiction over an administrative appeal.

Silverman v. City of New Haven · filed 1989-08-15

It is a well settled principle of administrative law that if an adequate administrative remedy exists, it must be exhausted before the Superior Court will obtain jurisdiction to act in the matter.

Section 4-183(a) permits an aggrieved person to seek Superior Court review of a final agency decision after exhausting administrative remedies.

Commissioner of Transportation v. Rocky Mountain, LLC · filed 2006-04-11(a)

To entertain the challenge of an award made pursuant to the relocation assistance statutes in a condemnation action without the exhaustion of administrative remedies would conflict with the requirements of federal and state law, which provide for an appeal within the agency and, after exhaustion of administrative remedies within the agency, an appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to the UAPA.

Section 4-183(j)(6) requires a court to affirm an agency penalty unless the record supports a finding that the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or with an abuse or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Slimp v. Department of Liquor Control · filed 1996-12-31(j)(6)

Our standard of review is derived from § 4-183 (j) (6), which requires us to affirm the department’s decision unless it is “arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.” ... We conclude that we have no evidence that the department abused its discretion when imposing penalties on the plaintiffs.

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

Burinskas v. Department of Social Services · filed 1997-03-18(j)

In the same vein, § 4-183 (j) authorizes a court to reverse the decision of an administrative body if that decision is, inter alia, “[i]n violation of constitutional or statutory provisions ... in excess of the statutory authority of the agency . . . made upon unlawful procedure . . . [or] affected by other error of law . . . .”

Section 4-183 (j) (5) does not prevent a reviewing court from making its own factual findings when an authorized in camera review gives it substantially different evidence from the agency’s record.

Department of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 1997-07-22(j)(5)

Because the evidentiary records that were the bases for the commission’s decisions differed substantially from the evidentiary records before the trial court, the court was free to make its own findings about whether the troopers or the department had met their burdens of proof.

Section 4-183(j) requires affirmance of an agency decision unless the appellant's substantial rights have been prejudiced.

Fillies v. Chro, No. Fst Cv96 0152557 (Sep. 29, 1997) · filed 1997-09-29(j)

Section 4-183 (j) requires affirmance of agency decisions unless substantial rights of an appellant have been prejudiced.

Section 4-183(j)(6) allows a court to overturn an administrative decision for abuse of discretion, which may include an excessive penalty.

Sahadi v. Connecticut Board of Examiners, No. Cv96-0565266 (Dec. 18, 1997) · filed 1997-12-18(j)(6)

An excessive penalty may constitute an abuse of discretion; Tucker v. Board of Education , 177 Conn. 572 , 583 (1979). Section 4-183 (j)(6) establishes abuse of discretion as a ground for a court overturning an administrative decision.

Section 4-183(j) bars a reviewing court from substituting its judgment for an agency’s on questions of fact.

Ferreira v. Zoning Board of Appeals · filed 1998-05-05(j)

We conclude that the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the board contrary to § 4-183 (j).

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

Drumm v. Freedom of Information Commission · filed 2024-02-27(j)

Application of the new standard to the existing record, therefore, would run the risk of this court’s ‘‘substitut[ing] its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact,’’ contrary to the requirements of § 4-183 (j).

Section 4-183 applies to appeals from state agency decisions, not municipal agency decisions.

Nadeau v. City of Meriden, No. Cv 97 056 72 06 (Apr. 22, 1997) · filed 1997-04-22

Section 4-183 applies only to decisions of state agencies, not decisions of municipal agencies.

Section 4-183 does not permit an appeal from a city police chief’s pawnbroker licensing decision when the chief is not acting as an agency under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.

Vlacich v. Sweeny, No. Cv97 034 73 18 (Dec. 4, 1997) · filed 1997-12-04

The defendant is not acting as a "agency" of the state within the meaning of Uniform Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly the plaintiff's remedy must be asserted under a different form of a procedure but not as an appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183 does not govern a tenured teacher’s appeal from a school board’s termination decision.

Sperow v. Region 7, No. Cv 00-0085019 S (Aug. 29, 2001) · filed 2001-08-29

Because the appeal is not subject to the provisions of the UAPA, then it is subject to the rules prescribed for civil actions brought to the court.

Section 4-183 allows an aggrieved person who has exhausted administrative remedies to appeal a final agency decision, including a decision in a proceeding for which a statute requires a hearing.

Dillon v. Department of Public Health, No. Cv97 0570364 (Sep. 25, 1997) · filed 1997-09-25(a)

The UAPA § 4-183 provides the right to an administrative appeal to a "person who has exhausted all administrative remedies . . . and who is aggrieved by a final decision. . . ." ... For the above referenced reasons the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Section 4-183 permits an aggrieved person to appeal an agency's final decision to the Superior Court; a parole revocation decision made without a statutorily required hearing does not qualify.

Reid v. Board of Parole, No. 0568311 (Nov. 12, 1997) · filed 1997-11-12

General Statutes § 4-183 permits an appeal to the Superior Court by a person aggrieved by a final decision of an administrative agency. ... The board's decision is not a "final decision" in a "contested case" because a hearing on the plaintiff's revocation of parole is not statutorily required. The court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

Section 4-183(a) permits Superior Court review of a final agency decision in a contested case when a hearing is required by statute.

Almonte v. Blumenthal, No. Cv97 0572948 S (Nov. 21, 1997) · filed 1997-11-21(a)

The UAPA, § 4-183 (a), provides the right to an administrative appeal to a "person who has exhausted all administrative remedies . . . and who is aggrieved by a final decision. . . ." ... The court finds that the DPH was statutorily (§ 19a-59c ) directed to provide the plaintiff a hearing to determine his legal right to continue as a WIC vender. The resulting DPH decision is thus a final decision in a contested case subject to Superior Court review pursuant to the UAPA.

Section 4-183(a) allows an aggrieved person who has exhausted administrative remedies to appeal a final agency decision; denial of a request to reopen a decision over ten years old is not a final decision.

Book v. Freedom of Information Commission, No. Cv97 0570856 (Jan. 6, 1998) · filed 1998-01-06(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. ... The denial of the plaintiff's request to open a decision over ten years old is not a final decision.

Section 4-183(b) requires a person appealing a preliminary agency ruling to show that waiting until the final decision would result in an inadequate remedy; prejudice at the agency hearing alone is insufficient.

Manafort Brothers v. Ct Comm'n on Human, No. Cv97 0575016 (Jan. 21, 1998) · filed 1998-01-21(b)

Prejudice is not a factor to be considered under the second prong of § 4-183 (b); rather the requirement is that postponing the appeal to await a final decision will result in an inadequate remedy.

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

Alai v. Div., Special Rev., No. Cv96 0562134 (Feb. 19, 1998) · filed 1998-02-19

Because these appeals are not contested cases, there is no final decision from which the plaintiffs have a right to appeal under § 4-183 .

Section 4-183 permits an administrative appeal only from a final agency decision; a matter that is not a contested case does not meet that requirement.

Edelman v. State, Build. Codes Stan. Comm., No. Cv97 0573456 (May 4, 1998) · filed 1998-05-04

In Summit Hydropower Partnership v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 226 Conn. 792 (1993), our Supreme Court affirmed that under § 4-183 the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an administrative appeal in the absence of a statutory provision requiring the agency to provide an opportunity for a hearing to determine a party's legal rights, duty or privileges. ... This appeal does not involve a contested case and, therefore, is not a final CT Page 5875 decision for purposes of a UAPA appeal.

Section 4-183(a) permits a party aggrieved by a final Adoption Review Board decision to appeal to the Superior Court.

In re Baby Z. · filed 1999-01-26(a)

Consequently, because the board is an agency within the meaning of § 4-166 (1), a party aggrieved by a final decision of the board may appeal from such decision to the Superior Court pursuant to § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183(b) does not permit an interlocutory appeal when completing the administrative proceeding can provide an adequate remedy.

Doe v. Department of Public Health · filed 1999-04-06(b)

Because the plaintiff fails to satisfy the second prong of § 4-183 (b), the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs interlocutory appeal was proper.

Section 4-183(a) allows an appeal by a person who has exhausted administrative remedies and is aggrieved by an agency's final decision; notice of a failed licensing examination without a required hearing is not appealable.

Mandanici v. State Comm., Env. Prot., No. Cv 99 0498474s (Dec. 3, 1999) · filed 1999-12-03(a)

Under § 4-183 (a), a person who has exhausted all administrative remedies and who is aggrieved by a final decision of an agency may appeal to the Superior Court. ... However, the notification of the failure of a licensing examination is not a final decision in a contested case. ... Thus, there is no statutory authority for an appeal from this type of action by DEP.

Section 4-183(a) requires a final agency decision for an administrative appeal; a dismissal for which no hearing is required is not appealable.

Nair v. Commission on Human Rght. Opp., No. Cv 99 0496767s (Sep. 12, 2000) · filed 2000-09-12(a)

Here, the dismissal was granted under the provisions of § 46a-101 (d), which does not provide for a hearing to determine a party's legal rights, duties or privileges. Accordingly, the dismissal by the CHRO is not a final decision appealable under General Statutes § 4-183 .

Section 4-183 permits a person who has exhausted agency remedies and is aggrieved by a final decision to appeal to Superior Court, including an agency declaratory ruling.

Sprint PCS L.P. v. Connecticut Siting Council · filed 2000-07-11(a)

Nor does Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4-183, the second statute referred to by the district court, require that a party apply for a certificate from the Siting Council and seek judicial review pursuant to § 16-50q before filing a request for a declaratory ruling pursuant to § 4-176(a).

Section 4-183(a) generally permits an aggrieved person to appeal an agency's final decision, but a more specific statute can control instead.

Local 34 35 v. Gorman, No. Cv 00 0503025s (Nov. 21, 2000) · filed 2000-11-21(a)

Section 4-183 (a) is more general, allowing an aggrieved person to appeal from a final decision of an agency. ... The Union argues that § 19a-641 was designed specifically for the health care provider and the intervenor might rely on the more general provisions of § 4-183 (a). ... The court does not consider the clear language of the statute delineating who might take an appeal under § 19a-641 as affected by these provisions. ... The legislature decided, however, that a Union intervenor at an OHCA proceeding is not permitted to appeal from an OHCA decision.

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal from a final agency decision. Finality depends on whether judicial review affects orderly adjudication, whether legal consequences flow from the decision, and whether the agency intended it to be final.

Office of Consumer Col. v. the Ct. Dpuc, No. Cv 99 0497238s (Sep. 21, 2001) · filed 2001-09-21(a)

Pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act ("UAPA"), 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." (Emphasis added.) ... What is a final decision depends on three factors: (1) does judicial review effect the orderly process of adjudication of the case; (2) do legal consequences flow from the decision; and (3) did the agency intend to issue a final decision? ... The court concludes that the July 7, 1999 and October 1, 1999 decisions are final decisions as to these issues.

Section 4-183(a) requires an administrative appeal to be taken from a final decision in a contested case.

Cohen v. Commissioner, No. Cv 01 0508149s (Sep. 24, 2001) · filed 2001-09-24(a)

General Statutes § 4-183 (a), of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act ("UAPA"), requires that an appeal be taken from a "final decision." ... The standards set forth in § 4-183 (a) and § 4-166 (2) on contested cases would have to be satisfied. These have not been met here.

An agency’s denial of a petition to intervene is not a final decision appealable under § 4-183(a).

Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission · filed 2002-01-29(a)

Application of these standards to the present case supports the conclusion that the denial of the plaintiffs petition to intervene was not a final decision of the commission.

Section 4-183(a) requires a contested case for an appeal from a final department decision.

Reynolds v. Dept. of Public Utility Control · filed 2001-10-11(a)

As the language of § 16-35 reveals, an appeal from a final department decision must comply with the final decision rule of General Statutes § 4-183 (a). ... The final decision rule, in this context, requires "a contested case."

Section 4-183(a) requires a final decision in a contested case for an administrative appeal from a Department of Public Utility Control decision.

Reynolds v. Department of Public Utility Control · filed 2001-10-11(a)

As the language of § 16-35 reveals, an appeal from a final department decision must comply with the final decision rule of General Statutes § 4-183 (a). ... The final decision rule, in this context, requires “a contested case.”

Section 4-183 gives the Superior Court jurisdiction over appeals from administrative agencies.

Williams v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles · filed 2001-11-27(a)

Appeals from administrative agencies are governed by General Statutes § 4-183, ... which provides for jurisdiction in the Superior Court.

Section 4-183(a) permits an appeal from a final decision in a contested case; a hearing required only by federal statute does not establish jurisdiction for that appeal.

Richards v. Alibozek, No. Cv 01-0510286 S (Jun. 26, 2002) · filed 2002-06-26(a)

Section 4-183 (a) of the UAPA applies to this case and provides in part that a person "who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the Superior Court as provided in this section." 2 A "final decision," in this context, means "the agency determination in a contested case." General Statutes § 4-166 (3)(A). ... The court concludes that the General Assembly did not intend the phrase "required by statute" in § 4-166 (2) to include federal statutes. ... Accordingly, § 722(c)(1) in the Rehabilitation Act does not enable this court to exercise jurisdiction.

Section 4-183(a) allows an appeal from a license suspension when a statutory hearing requirement makes the agency proceeding a contested case.

Leach v. Defilippo, No. Cv 02 0515134s (Oct. 31, 2002) · filed 2002-10-31(a)

The issue in this case is whether the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the plaintiffs have not appealed from a final decision pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 (a). ... The court then concluded that § 4-182 (c) provided a statutory requirement for a hearing. ... Under these circumstances, this court concludes that it must follow the PARCC holding. ... Therefore, the motion to dismiss is denied.

Section 4-183(a) requires an appeal from an agency decision to satisfy its final decision requirement.

Southeastern Connecticut Water v. Dph, No. Cv 02-0514127 S (Jul. 3, 2002) · filed 2002-07-03(a)

Because the plaintiff cannot satisfy the final decision requirement of § 4-183 (a), this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 4-183 (a) requires a final agency decision for an administrative appeal; a decision outside a contested case does not qualify as a final decision on that basis.

Bailey v. Medical Examining Board for State Employee Disability Retirement · filed 2003-02-25(a)

In the present case, the plaintiff has not been aggrieved by a final decision, as required by § 4-183 (a), because no contested case existed.

Section 4-183(a) requires a final agency decision even when another statute authorizes an administrative appeal.

Wallingford v. Dph, No. Cv 02 0515569s (Mar. 20, 2003) · filed 2003-03-20(a)

On the authority of Southern New England Telephone , it is held, as the department argues, that § 25-36 (a) does not provide to the town a right to appeal which is unburdened by the "final decision" requirement of § 4-183 (a).

Section 4-183(a) requires an appealable final decision for the Superior Court to have jurisdiction over an administrative appeal, including one brought under § 25-36(a).

Town of East Hampton v. Department of Public Health · filed 2003-11-25(a)

Senator Benson’s remark is not compelling enough to overcome either the plain language of the statute, which makes clear that § 4-183 (a) places the jurisdictional requirement of a final decision on appeals brought pursuant to § 25-36 (a), or the policy reasons for such requirement.

Section 4-183 (a) permits an appeal from an agency decision only if it is a final decision; decisions by the Board of Pardons and Paroles on commutation are not final decisions under the section.

Missionary Society v. Board of Pardons & Paroles · filed 2005-01-24(a)

Therefore, decisions in such proceedings are not “final decisions” for purposes of § 4-183 (a). Accordingly, there is no right to appeal from the board’s decisions.

Section 4-183(a) permits judicial review of a final agency decision, but a hearing that does not qualify as a contested case provides no basis for an administrative appeal.

Peters v. Department of Social Services · filed 2005-04-26(a)

Judicial review of an administrative decision is governed by General Statutes § 4-183 (a) of the UAPA, which provides that [a] person who has exhausted all administrative remedies . . . and who is aggrieved by a final decision may appeal to the superior court .... ... Accordingly, we conclude that, in the absence of a statute requiring that the department conduct a hearing with respect to the liens, the “ ‘[contested case’ ” requirement of § 4-166 (2) was not satisfied, and the trial court accordingly lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the UAPA.

Section 4-183 does not authorize an appeal from a prison classification decision when the decision is not from a contested case.

Francis v. OFFICER CHEVAIR · filed 2007-03-06(a)

The plaintiffs appeal from the decision of the classification committee, therefore, is not from a “contested case” as defined by § 4-166 (2). Accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under § 4-183.