basis of a colorable claim in Connecticut

2025The court rendered summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants, and they are not participating in this appeal. 3 ‘‘Although the denial of a motion to dismiss generally is an interlocutory ruling that does not constitute an appealable final judgment, the denial of a motion to dismiss filed on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity is an immediately appealable final judgment.’’ Filippi v. Sullivan, 273 Conn. 1 , 6 n.5, 866 A.2d 599 (2005).

2025The court rendered summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants, and they are not participating in this appeal. 3 ‘‘Although the denial of a motion to dismiss generally is an interlocutory ruling that does not constitute an appealable final judgment, the denial of a motion to dismiss filed on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity is an immediately appealable final judgment.’’ Filippi v. Sullivan, 273 Conn. 1 , 6 n.5, 866 A.2d 599 (2005).

2008Practice Book § 41-8 provides in relevant part: “The following defenses or objections, if capable of determination without a trial of the general issue, shall, if made prior to trial, be raised by a motion to dismiss the information . . . “(6) Previous prosecution barring the present prosecution . . . .” See, e.g., State v. Rivers, 283 Conn. 713 , 931 A.2d 185 (2007); State v. Alvarez, supra, 257 Conn. 782 ; State v. Crawford, supra, 257 Conn. 769 ; State v. Curcio, supra, 191 Conn. 27 ; see also Shay v. Rossi, 253 Conn. 134, 167 , 749 A.2d 1147 (2000) (“the denial of a motion to dismiss crimi

2004The denial of a motion to dismiss, on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, however, constitutes an exception to the general rule of finality and is an immediately appealable final judgment pursuant, to State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31 , 463 A.2d 566 (1983).

2019For example, in Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615 , 623–24, 376 A.2d 359 (1977), we noted, as . . .

2019For example, in Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615 , 623–24, 376 A.2d 359 (1977), we noted, as . . .

2018Although the denial of a motion to strike is interlocutory and, thus, generally not a final judgment for purposes of appeal; White v. White , 42 Conn. App. 747 , 749, 680 A.2d 1368 (1996) ; the denial of a motion filed on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity is an immediately appealable final judgment.

2018Although the denial of a motion to strike is interlocutory and, thus, generally not a final judgment for purposes of appeal; White v. White , 42 Conn. App. 747 , 749, 680 A.2d 1368 (1996) ; the denial of a motion filed on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity is an immediately appealable final judgment.

2017"A denial of a motion for summary judgment, however, which had been filed on the basis of a colorable claim of absolute immunity, constitutes an appealable final judgment." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Morgan v. Bubar , 115 Conn.App. 603 , 608, 975 A.2d 59 (2009).

2017"A denial of a motion for summary judgment, however, which had been filed on the basis of a colorable claim of absolute immunity, constitutes an appealable final judgment." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Morgan v. Bubar , 115 Conn.App. 603 , 608, 975 A.2d 59 (2009).

2009The denial of a motion to dismiss based on a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, by contrast, is an immediately appealable final judgment because the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 , 645 n.5, 974 A.2d 669 (2009). “[Ujnless the state is permitted to appeal a trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss, filed on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, the state’s right not to be required to litigate the claim filed against it would be irretri

2009The denial of a motion to dismiss based on a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, by contrast, is an immediately appealable final judgment because the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 , 645 n.5, 974 A.2d 669 (2009). “[Ujnless the state is permitted to appeal a trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss, filed on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, the state’s right not to be required to litigate the claim filed against it would be irretri

2008Practice Book § 41-8 provides in relevant part: “The following defenses or objections, if capable of determination without a trial of the general issue, shall, if made prior to trial, be raised by a motion to dismiss the information . . . “(6) Previous prosecution barring the present prosecution . . . .” See, e.g., State v. Rivers, 283 Conn. 713 , 931 A.2d 185 (2007); State v. Alvarez, supra, 257 Conn. 782 ; State v. Crawford, supra, 257 Conn. 769 ; State v. Curcio, supra, 191 Conn. 27 ; see also Shay v. Rossi, 253 Conn. 134, 167 , 749 A.2d 1147 (2000) (“the denial of a motion to dismiss crimi

2008Practice Book § 41-8 provides in relevant part: “The following defenses or objections, if capable of determination without a trial of the general issue, shall, if made prior to trial, be raised by a motion to dismiss the information . . . “(6) Previous prosecution barring the present prosecution . . . .” See, e.g., State v. Rivers, 283 Conn. 713 , 931 A.2d 185 (2007); State v. Alvarez, supra, 257 Conn. 782 ; State v. Crawford, supra, 257 Conn. 769 ; State v. Curcio, supra, 191 Conn. 27 ; see also Shay v. Rossi, 253 Conn. 134, 167 , 749 A.2d 1147 (2000) (“the denial of a motion to dismiss crimi

2008Practice Book § 41-8 provides in relevant part: “The following defenses or objections, if capable of determination without a trial of the general issue, shall, if made prior to trial, be raised by a motion to dismiss the information . . . “(6) Previous prosecution barring the present prosecution . . . .” See, e.g., State v. Rivers, 283 Conn. 713 , 931 A.2d 185 (2007); State v. Alvarez, supra, 257 Conn. 782 ; State v. Crawford, supra, 257 Conn. 769 ; State v. Curcio, supra, 191 Conn. 27 ; see also Shay v. Rossi, 253 Conn. 134, 167 , 749 A.2d 1147 (2000) (“the denial of a motion to dismiss crimi

2008Practice Book § 41-8 provides in relevant part: “The following defenses or objections, if capable of determination without a trial of the general issue, shall, if made prior to trial, be raised by a motion to dismiss the information . . . “(6) Previous prosecution barring the present prosecution . . . .” See, e.g., State v. Rivers, 283 Conn. 713 , 931 A.2d 185 (2007); State v. Alvarez, supra, 257 Conn. 782 ; State v. Crawford, supra, 257 Conn. 769 ; State v. Curcio, supra, 191 Conn. 27 ; see also Shay v. Rossi, 253 Conn. 134, 167 , 749 A.2d 1147 (2000) (“the denial of a motion to dismiss crimi

2007Similarly, therefore, in a civil case the denial of a motion to dismiss, filed on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, must be regarded under Curdo as an immediately appealable final judgment.” 9 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) See also Manifold v. Ragaglia, 94 Conn. App. 103, 122 , 891 A.2d 106 (2006) (“The aspect of sovereign immunity that protects the state from suit, however, is rendered meaningless if the issue is not fully resolved prior to trial.

2007Similarly, therefore, in a civil case the denial of a motion to dismiss, filed on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, must be regarded under Curdo as an immediately appealable final judgment.” 9 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) See also Manifold v. Ragaglia, 94 Conn. App. 103, 122 , 891 A.2d 106 (2006) (“The aspect of sovereign immunity that protects the state from suit, however, is rendered meaningless if the issue is not fully resolved prior to trial.

2006The denial of a motion to dismiss based on a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, by contrast, is an immediately appealable final judgment because the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them. . . . [Ujnless the state is permitted to appeal a trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss, filed on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, the state’s right not to be required to litigate the claim filed against it would be irretrievably lost.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wilson v. Troxler, 91 Conn.

2006The denial of a motion to dismiss based on a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, by contrast, is an immediately appealable final judgment because the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them. . . . [Ujnless the state is permitted to appeal a trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss, filed on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, the state’s right not to be required to litigate the claim filed against it would be irretrievably lost.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wilson v. Troxler, 91 Conn.

2006The denial of a motion to dismiss based on a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, by contrast, is an immediately appealable final judgment because the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them. . . . [Ujnless the state is permitted to appeal a trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss, filed on the basis of a colorable claim of sovereign immunity, the state’s right not to be required to litigate the claim filed against it would be irretrievably lost.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wilson v. Troxler, 91 Conn.

2002No such action shall be brought . . . unless notice of such injury and a general description of the same and of the cause thereof and of the time and place of its occurrence has been given in writing within ninety days thereafter to the commissioner. . . .” During her deposition, the plaintiff testified that she had noticed that “[t]he cap was out of the hole.” Hereinafter, those attachments will be referred to collectively as “the exhibits.” In Shay v. Rossi, supra, 253 Conn. 167 , our Supreme Court held that “in a civil case the denial of a motion to dismiss, filed on the basis of a colorabl

2002No such action shall be brought . . . unless notice of such injury and a general description of the same and of the cause thereof and of the time and place of its occurrence has been given in writing within ninety days thereafter to the commissioner. . . .” During her deposition, the plaintiff testified that she had noticed that “[t]he cap was out of the hole.” Hereinafter, those attachments will be referred to collectively as “the exhibits.” In Shay v. Rossi, supra, 253 Conn. 167 , our Supreme Court held that “in a civil case the denial of a motion to dismiss, filed on the basis of a colorabl

2002No such action shall be brought . . . unless notice of such injury and a general description of the same and of the cause thereof and of the time and place of its occurrence has been given in writing within ninety days thereafter to the commissioner. . . .” During her deposition, the plaintiff testified that she had noticed that “[t]he cap was out of the hole.” Hereinafter, those attachments will be referred to collectively as “the exhibits.” In Shay v. Rossi, supra, 253 Conn. 167 , our Supreme Court held that “in a civil case the denial of a motion to dismiss, filed on the basis of a colorabl

2002No such action shall be brought . . . unless notice of such injury and a general description of the same and of the cause thereof and of the time and place of its occurrence has been given in writing within ninety days thereafter to the commissioner. . . .” During her deposition, the plaintiff testified that she had noticed that “[t]he cap was out of the hole.” Hereinafter, those attachments will be referred to collectively as “the exhibits.” In Shay v. Rossi, supra, 253 Conn. 167 , our Supreme Court held that “in a civil case the denial of a motion to dismiss, filed on the basis of a colorabl

2000We recognize, however, that in State v. Malkowski, 189 Conn. 101, 105-106 , 454 A.2d 275 (1983), we held that the denial of the state’s plea in abatement, filed on the ground of sovereign immunity, was not a final judgment for purposes of appeal.

2000We recognize, however, that in State v. Malkowski, 189 Conn. 101, 105-106 , 454 A.2d 275 (1983), we held that the denial of the state’s plea in abatement, filed on the ground of sovereign immunity, was not a final judgment for purposes of appeal.