purpose of the notice requirement in Connecticut

2011“The purpose of the notice requirement is to furnish the commissioner with such precise information as to time and place as will enable [the commissioner] to inquire into the facts of the case intelligently . . . and to protect the state’s interests.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 26 .

1999"The purpose of the notice requirement is to furnish the commissioner with such precise information as to time and place as will enable [the commissioner] to inquire into the facts of the case intelligently, and to protect the state's interests." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bresnan v. Frankel , 224 Conn. 23 , 25-26 , 615 A.2d 1040 (1992).

1995Warkentin v. Burns, supra. The purpose of the notice requirement is to furnish the commissioner with such precise information as to time and place as will enable [the commissioner] to inquire into the facts of the case intelligently; Schaap v. Meriden, 139 Conn. 254 , 256 , 93 A.2d 152 (1952) . . . and to protect the state's interests.

1995Warkentin v. Burns, supra. The purpose of the notice requirement is to furnish the commissioner with such precise information as to time and place as will enable [the commissioner] to inquire into the facts of the case intelligently; Schaap v. Meriden, 139 Conn. 254 , 256 , 93 A.2d 152 (1952) . . . and to protect the state's interests.

2001As was stated in Pajor v. Wallingford , 47 Conn. App. 365 (1997) "The purpose of the notice requirement is not to set a trap for the unwary or to place an impediment in the way of an injured party. . . .

1999Rather, the purpose of notice is to allow the municipality to make a proper investigation into the circumstances surrounding the claim in order to protect its financial interests." Pratt v. Old Saybrook , 225 Conn. 177 , 182 , 621 A.2d 1322 (1993); Pajor v. Town of Wallingford , 47 Conn. App. 365 , 378-79 , 704 A.2d 247 , cert. denied, 244 Conn. 917 , 714 A.2d 7 (1998).

1994Belanger v. Village Pub I, Inc., 26 Conn. App. 509 , 515 (1992), citing Zucker v. Vogt, 329 F.2d 426 , CT Page 185 428 (2d Cir. 1964).

1992"The purpose of the notice requirement is to enable a prospective defendant to begin marshalling his evidence while memories are still fresh." Zucker v. Vogt, 329 F.2d 426 , 428 (2nd Cir. 1964).

2011“If this purpose is to be served the ‘cause’ of the injury which is required to be stated must be interpreted to mean the defect or defective condition of the highway which *754 brought about the injury.” Nicholaus v. Bridgeport, 117 Conn. 398, 401 , 167 A. 826 (1933).

2011“If this purpose is to be served the ‘cause’ of the injury which is required to be stated must be interpreted to mean the defect or defective condition of the highway which *754 brought about the injury.” Nicholaus v. Bridgeport, 117 Conn. 398, 401 , 167 A. 826 (1933).

2011Errors and omissions in the recorded mortgage that would not mislead a title searcher as to the true nature of the secured obligation do not affect the validity of the mortgage against third parties." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

2002Transportation, Inc. v. Pacelli, 189 Conn. 401 , 414 , 456 A.2d 325 (1983).

2002Transportation, Inc. v. Pacelli, 189 Conn. 401 , 414 , 456 A.2d 325 (1983).

1999"The notice need not be expressed with the fullness and exactness of a pleading." Lussier v. Dept. of Transportation , 228 Conn. 343 , 636 A.2d 808 (1994).

1999"The notice need not be expressed with the fullness and exactness of a pleading." Lussier v. Dept. of Transportation , 228 Conn. 343 , 636 A.2d 808 (1994).

1999Rather, the purpose of notice is to allow the municipality to make a proper investigation into the circumstances surrounding the claim in order to protect its financial interests." Pratt v. Old Saybrook , 225 Conn. 177 , 182 , 621 A.2d 1322 (1993); Pajor v. Town of Wallingford , 47 Conn. App. 365 , 378-79 , 704 A.2d 247 , cert. denied, 244 Conn. 917 , 714 A.2d 7 (1998).

1999Rather, the purpose of notice is to allow the municipality to make a proper investigation into the circumstances surrounding the claim in order to protect its financial interests." Pratt v. Old Saybrook , 225 Conn. 177 , 182 , 621 A.2d 1322 (1993); Pajor v. Town of Wallingford , 47 Conn. App. 365 , 378-79 , 704 A.2d 247 , cert. denied, 244 Conn. 917 , 714 A.2d 7 (1998).

1998This is more easily stated than applied, given the broad admonitions that the sufficiency of notice is tested with reference to the purpose for which it is required, Moffett v. Burns, 3 CSCR 636 (1988), aff'd 18 Conn. App. 821 (1989) and "the purpose of the notice requirement is to furnish the Commissioner with such precise information as to time and place as will enable (the Commissioner) to inquire into the facts of the case intelligently." Bresnan v. Frankel, 224 Conn. at page 26 .

1998The Connecticut Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that "the fundamental reason for the requirement of notice is to advise all affected parties of their opportunity to be heard and to be apprised of the relief sought." Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Water Resources Commission, 162 Conn. 89 , 110 (1971); Slagle v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 144 Conn. 690 , 693 (1957); Winslow v. Zoning Board, 143 Conn. 381 , 389 (1956).

1998The Connecticut Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that "the fundamental reason for the requirement of notice is to advise all affected parties of their opportunity to be heard and to be apprised of the relief sought." Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Water Resources Commission, 162 Conn. 89 , 110 (1971); Slagle v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 144 Conn. 690 , 693 (1957); Winslow v. Zoning Board, 143 Conn. 381 , 389 (1956).

1998The Connecticut Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that "the fundamental reason for the requirement of notice is to advise all affected parties of their opportunity to be heard and to be apprised of the relief sought." Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Water Resources Commission, 162 Conn. 89 , 110 (1971); Slagle v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 144 Conn. 690 , 693 (1957); Winslow v. Zoning Board, 143 Conn. 381 , 389 (1956).

1997It is not necessary, however, that a mortgage recite with particularity all of the details of the underlying transaction." Id., 578-79 .

1996When testing the sufficiency of the notice, the court must "refer to the purpose for which it is required." Morico v. Cox ; supra. The purpose of the notice requirement is not "merely to alert the commissioner of the occurrence of an accident and resulting injury, but rather to permit the commissioner to gather information to protect himself in the event of a lawsuit." Warkentin v. Burns, 223 Conn. 14 , 18 .

1995Warkentin v. Burns, supra, 20." Murray v. Commissioner of Transportation, 31 Conn. App. 752 , 754-55 , 626 A.2d 1328 (1993).

1995Warkentin v. Burns, supra, 20." Murray v. Commissioner of Transportation, 31 Conn. App. 752 , 754-55 , 626 A.2d 1328 (1993).

1994Rather, the purpose of notice is to allow the municipality to make a proper investigation into the circumstances surrounding the claim in order to protect its financial interests." Pratt v. Old Saybrook , 225 Conn. 182 (1993); McCann v. New Haven , 33 Conn. App. 56 (1993).

1994Belanger v. Village Pub I, Inc., 26 Conn. App. 509 , 515 (1992), citing Zucker v. Vogt, 329 F.2d 426 , CT Page 185 428 (2d Cir. 1964).

1993The purpose of the notice requirement is to advise all affected parties of their opportunity to be heard and to be apprised of the relief sought; Schwartz v. Hamden, 168 Conn. 8 , 14 .

1993Notice of the initial hearing did advise "all affected parties of their opportunity to be heard and to be apprised of the relief sought"; Schwartz v. Hamden, supra, 14 ; and that individuals who availed themselves of the opportunity to attend the initial hearing would have been sufficiently apprised of the subject, time, and location of the October 3, 1992 continued hearing.

1990The appropriate inquiry is whether "`the notice reasonably protect[s] the interest of the defendant under the particular circumstances of the case.'" O'Neill, 2 CSCR at 4 (quoting Schaap, 139 Conn. at 256 ).