Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc., 763 A.2d 1044 (Conn. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc., 763 A.2d 1044 (Conn. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
72 citation events (72 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Frauenglass & Associates, LLC v. Enagbare (connappct, 2014-04-01)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Frauenglass & Associates, LLC v. Enagbare
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wendt v. Wendt, 59 Conn. App. 656, 692 , 757 A.2d 1225 (claim of judicial bias waived unless motion to disqualify filed at trial), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 918 , 763 A.2d 1044 (2000). 2 The attorney fact finder was appointed pursuant to General Statutes § 52-549o.
discussed Cited "see" Wiegand v. Wiegand (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wendt v. Wendt, [ 59 Conn. App. 656, 693 , 757 A.2d 1225 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 918 , 763 A.2d 1044 (2000)].
discussed Cited "see" Harley v. Indian Spring Land Co. (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
On the basis of our review of the record before us, our research of the relevant case law and the parties’ actions; see Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc., 255 Conn. 916, 917-18 , 763 A.2d 1044 (2000) (McDonald, C.
cited Cited "see" Ertel v. Demmon
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wendt v. Wendt, 59 Conn. App. 656, 688-89 , 757 A.2d 1225 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 918 , 763 A.2d 1044 (2000); Practice Book § 66-5.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Boyle (2×)
Conn. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See In re Candace H., 259 Conn. 523, 526-27 , 790 A.2d 1164 (2002) (respondent mother of minor child in custody of department of children and families appealed to Appellate Court from denial of motion for visitation with child; Appellate Court reversed in part; while certified appeal of department of children and families pending in this court, respondent voluntarily relinquished parental rights [with respect] to child; certified appeal dismissed as moot, and Appellate Court judgmentvacated because public interest served, so as to prevent judgment, unreviewable because of mootness, from spawni…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Singleton (2×)
Conn. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See In re Candace H., 259 Conn. 523, 526-27 , 790 A.2d 1164 (2002) (respondent mother of minor child in custody of department of children and families appealed to Appellate Court from denial of motion for visitation with child; Appellate Court reversed in part; while certified appeal of department of children and families pending in this court, respondent voluntarily relinquished parental rights to child; certified appeal dismissed as moot, and Appellate Court judgment vacated because public interest served, so as to prevent judgment, unreviewable because of mootness, from spawning legal conse…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Grimm v. Grimm
Conn. App. Ct. · 2004 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Wendt v. Wendt, 59 Conn. App. 656 , 663 n.4, 757 A.2d 1225 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 918 , 763 A.2d 1044 (2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Sostre, No. Hhd-Cr99-0165989-T (Dec. 19, 2001)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
"The process of statutory interpretation involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ehlers, supra, 252 Conn. 589 ; see also State v. Gurreh, 60 Conn. App. 166 , 171 , 758 A.2d 877 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 916 , 763 A.2d 1039 (2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Franklin, No. Mv 99 0203450s (May 7, 2001)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
If the language is plain and unambiguous, we need look no further than the words actually used because we assume that the language expresses the legislature's intent." (Citations omitted.) State v. DeFrancesco, 235 Conn. 426 , 435 , 668 A.2d 348 (1995); see also State v. Gurreh, 60 Conn. App. 166 , 171 , 758 A.2d 877 cert. denied, 255 Conn. 916 , 763 A.2d 1039 (2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Robinson, No. Cr99-0099216 (Mar. 22, 2001)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
If the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we need look no further than the words actually used because we assume that the language expresses the legislature's intent." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. DeFrancesco . 235 Conn. 426 , 435 , (1995); see also State v. Gurreh, 60 Conn. App. 166 , 171 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 916 (2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TIMOTHY P. TAFT
v.
WHEELABRATOR PUTNAM, INC.
SC 16241; SC 16242.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 26, 2000.
763 A.2d 1044
Sheila A. Huddleston and Joseph P. Williams, in support of the motion., Ernest J. Cotnoir, in opposition.
McDonald.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

The motion of the named defendant, filed February 22, 2000, to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal and to vacate the judgment of the Appellate Court; Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc., 55 Conn. App. 359, 742 A.2d 366 (1999); in which motion the defendant Putnam zoning commission joined, having been presented to the court, it is hereby ordered that the appeals are dismissed. The judgment of the Appellate Court is vacated and the appeals are remanded to that court with direction to dismiss the plaintiffs’ original appeal for lack of aggrievement.

Dissent

MCDONALD, C. J.,

dissenting. I dissent from the decision of the majority to vacate the judgment of the Appellate Court. Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc., 55 Conn. App. 359, 742 A.2d 366 (1999). I believe that the actions of the named defendant-appellant, Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc. (Wheelabrator), disentitle it to vacatur of that decision.

Vacatur is equitable relief, granted in those extraordinary cases in which the public interest would be served by that relief. “ ‘Judicial precedents are presumptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole. They are not merely the property of private litigants and should stand unless a court concludes that the public interest would be served by a vacatur.’ ” U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 26-27, 115 S. Ct. 386, 130 L. Ed. 2d 233 (1994).

The court must consider the actions of the parties in determining if vacatur is appropriate. The United States Supreme Court, in U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co., observed that the remedy of vacatur is not justified in cases in which the moving party causes mootness through its own voluntary actions, save under exceptional circumstances. The court stated: “The denial of vacatur is merely one application of the principle that [a] suitor’s conduct in relation to the matter at hand may disentitle him to the relief he seeks.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 25.

In this case, Wheelabrator sought certification to appeal from the Appellate Court and, after its petition was granted; Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc., 252 Conn. 918, 744 A.2d 439 (2000); moved for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ appeal to the Appellate Court and for vacatur of the Appellate Court decision. We thereafter remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether the plaintiffs still had actual aggrievement. The trial court found that the plaintiffs were not aggrieved[*918] at the time of the Appellate Court’s judgment, since Wheelabrator had entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs before the Appellate Court’s decision was released. The Appellate Court’s decision was released in October, 1999. The settlement between the parties had been reached in March, 1999. Wheelabrator’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal and to vacate the judgment of the Appellate Court, the first time the settlement was revealed, was filed in February, 2000.

Sheila A. Huddleston and Joseph P. Williams, in support of the motion. Ernest J. Cotnoir, in opposition. Decided December 26, 2000

These circumstances present a classic example of when vacatur is not appropriate. Wheelabrator did not bring the settlement to the attention of the Appellate Court, thereby requiring that court to decide the issues, perhaps in Wheelabrator’s favor. Having lost, Wheela-brator now seeks to vacate the decision. We should not order vacatur of that decision rendered without knowledge of circumstances created by Wheelabrator and kept from the Appellate Court by Wheelabrator. Respect for the Appellate Court, I believe, requires that this case be remanded to that court and dismissed as moot and that the motion for vacatur be denied.

SULLIVAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this motion.