absence of an evidentiary hearing in Connecticut

2019The plaintiff cites Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation , 293 Conn. 342 , 977 A.2d 636 (2009), in which our Supreme Court held that "where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 348 , 977 A.2d 636 .

2019The plaintiff cites Columbia Air Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transportation , 293 Conn. 342 , 977 A.2d 636 (2009), in which our Supreme Court held that "where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 348 , 977 A.2d 636 .

2025With respect to Joshua, it is well settled that ‘‘where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the reso- lution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 15 Jackson v. Prince on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.’’ (Internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Godbout v. Attanasio, 199 Conn. App. 88, 97 , 234 A.3d 1031 (2020). ‘‘When issues of fact are necessary to the determination of a court’s jurisdic- tion, due process requires that a trial-like hearing be held, in

2025With respect to Joshua, it is well settled that ‘‘where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the reso- lution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 15 Jackson v. Prince on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.’’ (Internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Godbout v. Attanasio, 199 Conn. App. 88, 97 , 234 A.3d 1031 (2020). ‘‘When issues of fact are necessary to the determination of a court’s jurisdic- tion, due process requires that a trial-like hearing be held, in

2025With respect to Joshua, it is well settled that ‘‘where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the reso- lution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 15 Jackson v. Prince on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.’’ (Internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Godbout v. Attanasio, 199 Conn. App. 88, 97 , 234 A.3d 1031 (2020). ‘‘When issues of fact are necessary to the determination of a court’s jurisdic- tion, due process requires that a trial-like hearing be held, in

2025With respect to Joshua, it is well settled that ‘‘where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the reso- lution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 15 Jackson v. Prince on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.’’ (Internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Godbout v. Attanasio, 199 Conn. App. 88, 97 , 234 A.3d 1031 (2020). ‘‘When issues of fact are necessary to the determination of a court’s jurisdic- tion, due process requires that a trial-like hearing be held, in

2022In such circumstances, prior to a final determination of the cause by our Supreme Court, a decision of this court is binding precedent on this court.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ortiz v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 211 Conn. App. 378 , 386 n.4, 272 A.3d 692 (2022). 11 We note that ‘‘where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts. . . .

2022An evidentiary hearing is necessary because a court cannot make a critical factual [jurisdictional] finding based on memoranda and documents submitted by the parties.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Giannoni v. Commissioner of Transportation, 322 Conn. 344, 350 , 141 A.3d 784 (2016).

2022An evidentiary hearing is necessary because a court cannot make a critical factual [jurisdictional] finding based on memoranda and documents submitted by the parties.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Giannoni v. Commissioner of Transportation, 322 Conn. 344, 350 , 141 A.3d 784 (2016).

2021Generally, when the exercise of the court’s discretion depends on issues of fact which are disputed, due process requires that a trial-like hear- ing be held, in which an opportunity is provided to present evidence and to cross-examine adverse wit- nesses.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Szot v. Szot, 41 Conn. App. 238, 241 , 674 A.2d 1384 (1996); see also Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 652 , 974 A.2d 669 (2009) (‘‘where a jurisdictional deter- mination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the abse

2021Generally, when the exercise of the court’s discretion depends on issues of fact which are disputed, due process requires that a trial-like hear- ing be held, in which an opportunity is provided to present evidence and to cross-examine adverse wit- nesses.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Szot v. Szot, 41 Conn. App. 238, 241 , 674 A.2d 1384 (1996); see also Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 652 , 974 A.2d 669 (2009) (‘‘where a jurisdictional deter- mination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the abse

2020So long as the procedure afforded ade- quately protects the individual interests at stake, there is no reason to impose substantially greater burdens . . . under the guise of due process.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) Property Asset Management, Inc. v. Lazarte, 163 Conn. App. 737, 748 , 138 A.3d 290 (2016). ‘‘[If] a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.’’ Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 652 , 974 A.2d 669 (2009);

2020So long as the procedure afforded ade- quately protects the individual interests at stake, there is no reason to impose substantially greater burdens . . . under the guise of due process.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) Property Asset Management, Inc. v. Lazarte, 163 Conn. App. 737, 748 , 138 A.3d 290 (2016). ‘‘[If] a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.’’ Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 652 , 974 A.2d 669 (2009);

2020If, however, the defendant submits either no proof to rebut the plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations . . . or only evidence that fails to call those allegations into question . . . the plaintiff need not supply counteraffi- davits or other evidence to support the complaint, but may rest on the jurisdictional allegations therein. . . . ‘‘Finally, where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdic- tional facts.’’ (Citations omitted; interna

2020If, however, the defendant submits either no proof to rebut the plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations . . . or only evidence that fails to call those allegations into question . . . the plaintiff need not supply counteraffi- davits or other evidence to support the complaint, but may rest on the jurisdictional allegations therein. . . . ‘‘Finally, where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdic- tional facts.’’ (Citations omitted; interna

2020Co., 282 Conn. 505, 515 , 923 A.2d 638 (2007).

2020Co., 282 Conn. 505, 515 , 923 A.2d 638 (2007).

2019Rather, those allegations are tempered by the light shed on them by the [supplemen- tary undisputed facts] . . . .’’6 (Footnote added; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Norris v. Trumbull, 187 Conn. App. 201, 209 , 201 A.3d 1137 (2019). ‘‘Conversely, where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdic- tional facts. . . .

2019Rather, those allegations are tempered by the light shed on them by the [supplemen- tary undisputed facts] . . . .’’6 (Footnote added; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Norris v. Trumbull, 187 Conn. App. 201, 209 , 201 A.3d 1137 (2019). ‘‘Conversely, where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdic- tional facts. . . .

2019Id.

2019But in the absence of an evidentiary hearing, it was error for the district court to resolve that factual dispute in [the defendant's] favor." Id., 86 .

2017Vargas v. Doe , 96 Conn.App. 399 , [ 900 A.2d 525 ] (2006) (while embarrassment and humiliation in one's professional and social community is normally insufficient, the most compelling situations include social stigmatization, real *395 danger of physical harm or where the injury litigated against would occur as a result of the disclosure of the party's identity), [cert. denied, 280 Conn. 923 , 908 A.2d 546 (2006) ].

2017Vargas v. Doe , 96 Conn.App. 399 , [ 900 A.2d 525 ] (2006) (while embarrassment and humiliation in one's professional and social community is normally insufficient, the most compelling situations include social stigmatization, real *395 danger of physical harm or where the injury litigated against would occur as a result of the disclosure of the party's identity), [cert. denied, 280 Conn. 923 , 908 A.2d 546 (2006) ].

2017Vargas v. Doe , 96 Conn.App. 399 , [ 900 A.2d 525 ] (2006) (while embarrassment and humiliation in one's professional and social community is normally insufficient, the most compelling situations include social stigmatization, real *395 danger of physical harm or where the injury litigated against would occur as a result of the disclosure of the party's identity), [cert. denied, 280 Conn. 923 , 908 A.2d 546 (2006) ].

2017Vargas v. Doe , 96 Conn.App. 399 , [ 900 A.2d 525 ] (2006) (while embarrassment and humiliation in one's professional and social community is normally insufficient, the most compelling situations include social stigmatization, real *395 danger of physical harm or where the injury litigated against would occur as a result of the disclosure of the party's identity), [cert. denied, 280 Conn. 923 , 908 A.2d 546 (2006) ].

2012"Factual findings underlying the court's decision, however, will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Merrill v. NRT New England, Inc., supra, 126 Conn.App. at 318 , 12 A.3d 575 .

2012"Factual findings underlying the court's decision, however, will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Merrill v. NRT New England, Inc., supra, 126 Conn.App. at 318 , 12 A.3d 575 .

2011Although our Supreme Court has recognized that “[w]hen a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction raises a factual question which is not determinable from the face of the record, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to present evidence which *436 will establish jurisdiction”; Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48, 54 , 459 A.2d 503 (1983); it also has instructed that “where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictio

2011Although our Supreme Court has recognized that “[w]hen a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction raises a factual question which is not determinable from the face of the record, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to present evidence which *436 will establish jurisdiction”; Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48, 54 , 459 A.2d 503 (1983); it also has instructed that “where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical factual dispute, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of an evidentiary hearing to establish jurisdictio

2011“When issues of fact are necessary to the determination of a court’s jurisdiction, due process requires that a trial-like hearing be held, in which an opportunity is provided to present evidence and to cross-examine adverse witnesses.” Lampasona v. Jacobs, 7 Conn. App. 639, 642-43 , 509 A.2d 1089 (1986). *223 In the present case, the plaintiffs were required to establish the finality of the commission’s determination to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court.

2011“When issues of fact are necessary to the determination of a court’s jurisdiction, due process requires that a trial-like hearing be held, in which an opportunity is provided to present evidence and to cross-examine adverse witnesses.” Lampasona v. Jacobs, 7 Conn. App. 639, 642-43 , 509 A.2d 1089 (1986). *223 In the present case, the plaintiffs were required to establish the finality of the commission’s determination to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court.

1997State Library v. Freedom of Information Commission, 240 Conn. 824 , 832 (1997).