functional equivalent test in Connecticut

2022The applicability of absolute immunity implicates the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.5 E.g., Bruno v. Trav- elers Cos., 172 Conn. App. 717, 723 , 161 A.3d 630 (2017); cf. Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 272 Conn. 776, 787 , 865 A.2d 1163 (2005) (like colorable claim of sovereign immunity, to protect against threat of lawsuit, colorable claim of absolute immunity based on partici- pation in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings gives rise to immediately appealable final judgment). ‘‘When a . . . court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss . . .

2022The applicability of absolute immunity implicates the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.5 E.g., Bruno v. Trav- elers Cos., 172 Conn. App. 717, 723 , 161 A.3d 630 (2017); cf. Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 272 Conn. 776, 787 , 865 A.2d 1163 (2005) (like colorable claim of sovereign immunity, to protect against threat of lawsuit, colorable claim of absolute immunity based on partici- pation in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings gives rise to immediately appealable final judgment). ‘‘When a . . . court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss . . .

2022The applicability of absolute immunity implicates the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.5 E.g., Bruno v. Trav- elers Cos., 172 Conn. App. 717, 723 , 161 A.3d 630 (2017); cf. Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 272 Conn. 776, 787 , 865 A.2d 1163 (2005) (like colorable claim of sovereign immunity, to protect against threat of lawsuit, colorable claim of absolute immunity based on partici- pation in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings gives rise to immediately appealable final judgment). ‘‘When a . . . court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss . . .

2022The applicability of absolute immunity implicates the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.5 E.g., Bruno v. Trav- elers Cos., 172 Conn. App. 717, 723 , 161 A.3d 630 (2017); cf. Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 272 Conn. 776, 787 , 865 A.2d 1163 (2005) (like colorable claim of sovereign immunity, to protect against threat of lawsuit, colorable claim of absolute immunity based on partici- pation in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings gives rise to immediately appealable final judgment). ‘‘When a . . . court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss . . .

1999Id.

1998"The major and discrete criteria which federal courts have utilized in employing a functional equivalent test are: (1) whether the entity performs a governmental function; (2) the level of government funding; (3) the extent of government involvement CT Page 1931 or regulation; and (4) whether the entity was created by the government." Id.

1996Although our Appellate Court originally held that the functional equivalent test required all four elements, Hallas v. FOIC, 18 Conn. App. 291 (1989), this holding was rejected by the Supreme Court in Connecticut Humane Society v. FOIC, 218 Conn. 757 , 760-761 (1991), when the court held: "In light of the myriad of organizational arrangements that may be confronted under the functional equivalency approach, each new arrangement must be examined anew and in its own context. [Citations omitted.] A case-by-case application of the factors noted above is best suited to ensure that the general rule

1995In Connecticut Humane Society v. Freedom of Information Commission, 218 Conn. 757, 761 , 591 A.2d 395 (1991), our Supreme Court explained that all four factors of the functional equivalent test need not be satisfied.

2024(Internal quotation marks omitted.) National Organi- zation for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34, 52 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1234 , 132 S. Ct. 1635 , 182 L.

2024(Internal quotation marks omitted.) National Organi- zation for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34, 52 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1234 , 132 S. Ct. 1635 , 182 L.

2024(Internal quotation marks omitted.) National Organi- zation for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34, 52 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1234 , 132 S. Ct. 1635 , 182 L.

2016See, e.g., United States v. McDonald, 150 F.3d 1301, 1304 (10th Cir. 1998); Smith v. Horn, 120 F.3d 400, 418 (3d Cir. 1997). 17 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L.

2016See, e.g., United States v. McDonald, 150 F.3d 1301, 1304 (10th Cir. 1998); Smith v. Horn, 120 F.3d 400, 418 (3d Cir. 1997). 17 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L.

2012"Mere nondisclosure... does not ordinarily amount to fraud"; Egan v. Hudson Nut Products, Inc., 142 Conn. 344, 347 , 114 A.2d 213 (1955); however, fraudulent nondisclosure or suppression arises from a "failure to disclose known facts, and, as well, a request or an occasion or circumstance which imposes a duty to speak." Ceferatti v. Boisvert, 137 Conn. 280, 283 , 77 A.2d 82 (1950); see also Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212, 215 , 595 A.2d 1377 (1991) (where alleged fraud consisted of defendant's failure to disclose value of asset that defendant was obligated to disclose pursuant to rule

2012"Mere nondisclosure... does not ordinarily amount to fraud"; Egan v. Hudson Nut Products, Inc., 142 Conn. 344, 347 , 114 A.2d 213 (1955); however, fraudulent nondisclosure or suppression arises from a "failure to disclose known facts, and, as well, a request or an occasion or circumstance which imposes a duty to speak." Ceferatti v. Boisvert, 137 Conn. 280, 283 , 77 A.2d 82 (1950); see also Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212, 215 , 595 A.2d 1377 (1991) (where alleged fraud consisted of defendant's failure to disclose value of asset that defendant was obligated to disclose pursuant to rule

2012"Mere nondisclosure... does not ordinarily amount to fraud"; Egan v. Hudson Nut Products, Inc., 142 Conn. 344, 347 , 114 A.2d 213 (1955); however, fraudulent nondisclosure or suppression arises from a "failure to disclose known facts, and, as well, a request or an occasion or circumstance which imposes a duty to speak." Ceferatti v. Boisvert, 137 Conn. 280, 283 , 77 A.2d 82 (1950); see also Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212, 215 , 595 A.2d 1377 (1991) (where alleged fraud consisted of defendant's failure to disclose value of asset that defendant was obligated to disclose pursuant to rule

2012"Mere nondisclosure... does not ordinarily amount to fraud"; Egan v. Hudson Nut Products, Inc., 142 Conn. 344, 347 , 114 A.2d 213 (1955); however, fraudulent nondisclosure or suppression arises from a "failure to disclose known facts, and, as well, a request or an occasion or circumstance which imposes a duty to speak." Ceferatti v. Boisvert, 137 Conn. 280, 283 , 77 A.2d 82 (1950); see also Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212, 215 , 595 A.2d 1377 (1991) (where alleged fraud consisted of defendant's failure to disclose value of asset that defendant was obligated to disclose pursuant to rule

2011Management Co., 272 Conn. 81, 98 , 861 A.2d 1160 (2004) (considering functional equivalent test when crafting different test to determine whether corporate entity is arm of state entitled to assert sovereign immunity as defense). *755 Moreover, the text of the act provides no practical justification for incoiporating the functional equivalent test into the act.

2011Management Co., 272 Conn. 81, 98 , 861 A.2d 1160 (2004) (considering functional equivalent test when crafting different test to determine whether corporate entity is arm of state entitled to assert sovereign immunity as defense). *755 Moreover, the text of the act provides no practical justification for incoiporating the functional equivalent test into the act.

2008Moreover, the functional equivalent test, pursuant to which a reviewing court determines whether other facts that a jury finds are so closely related to the element on which the trial court fails to instruct that no jury reasonably could find those other facts without also finding the facts that would satisfy the omitted element; see id., 271 (Scalia, J., concurring); was expressly rejected by the court in Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 14 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L.

2008Moreover, the functional equivalent test, pursuant to which a reviewing court determines whether other facts that a jury finds are so closely related to the element on which the trial court fails to instruct that no jury reasonably could find those other facts without also finding the facts that would satisfy the omitted element; see id., 271 (Scalia, J., concurring); was expressly rejected by the court in Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 14 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L.

1996Although our Appellate Court originally held that the functional equivalent test required all four elements, Hallas v. FOIC, 18 Conn. App. 291 (1989), this holding was rejected by the Supreme Court in Connecticut Humane Society v. FOIC, 218 Conn. 757 , 760-761 (1991), when the court held: "In light of the myriad of organizational arrangements that may be confronted under the functional equivalency approach, each new arrangement must be examined anew and in its own context. [Citations omitted.] A case-by-case application of the factors noted above is best suited to ensure that the general rule

1996Although our Appellate Court originally held that the functional equivalent test required all four elements, Hallas v. FOIC, 18 Conn. App. 291 (1989), this holding was rejected by the Supreme Court in Connecticut Humane Society v. FOIC, 218 Conn. 757 , 760-761 (1991), when the court held: "In light of the myriad of organizational arrangements that may be confronted under the functional equivalency approach, each new arrangement must be examined anew and in its own context. [Citations omitted.] A case-by-case application of the factors noted above is best suited to ensure that the general rule

1980Rocap v. Indiek, supra, 180 ; Washington Research Project, Inc. v. Department of Health, Education & Welfare, supra, 246-48; Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Department of Health, Education & Welfare, supra, 941; Lombardo v. Handler, supra, 802 .