discussed Cited "see" Graham v. Friedlander Since Cahill, our courts consistently have described the test for whether a board of education is entitled to sovereign immunity as whether the ‘‘action would operate to control or interfere with the activities of the state . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pur- zycki v. Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101, 112 , 708 A.2d 937 (1998), overruled in part on other grounds by Haynes v. Middletown, 314 Conn. 303 , 323, 101 A.3d 249 (2014); accord Palosz v. Greenwich, 184 Conn. App. 201 , 207– 208, 194 A.3d 885 , cert. denied, 330 Conn. 930 , 194 A.3d 778 (2018); Doe v. Board of Education,…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Khan v. Jewish Women International First, when a potential jurisdictional defect is brought to the court’s attention, the court must dispose of that issue first, “no matter in what form it is pre- sented.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 813; see, e.g., Palosz v. Greenwich, 184 Conn. App. 201, 207 , 194 A.3d 885 (addressing claim of sovereign immunity, which implicates subject matter jurisdiction, that was raised in motion to strike), cert. denied, 330 Conn. 930 , 194 A.3d 778 (2018); Sethi v. Yagildere, 136 Conn. App. 767 , 770 and n.6, 47 A.3d 892 (treating motion for su…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." White v. Commissioner of Correction See, e.g., Thompson v. Commissioner of Correction, 184 Conn. App. 215 , 228 n.5, 194 A.3d 831 (‘‘[b]ecause we have decided the petitioner’s claim on the basis of the performance prong, this court need not discuss the prejudice prong’’ of Strickland), cert. denied, 330 Conn. 930 , 194 A.3d 778 (2018).