short calendar hearing in Connecticut

1994Practice Book § 428; Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., 199 Conn. 496, 502-503 , 508 A.2d 415 (1986).

1994Practice Book § 428; Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., 199 Conn. 496, 502-503 , 508 A.2d 415 (1986).

2019In the present case, however, the trial court's discretion to reschedule the short calendar hearing on the parties' joint motion to open and modify the 1997 judgment was circumscribed by §§ 8-8 (n) and 22a-19, which provide "environmental intervenors [with] standing to raise environmental concerns regarding settlements of administrative appeals" and permit such intervenors to "block the approval of settlements on that basis." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Griswold v. Camputaro , supra, 177 Conn. App. at 799 , 173 A.3d 959 .

2019In the present case, however, the trial court's discretion to reschedule the short calendar hearing on the parties' joint motion to open and modify the 1997 judgment was circumscribed by §§ 8-8 (n) and 22a-19, which provide "environmental intervenors [with] standing to raise environmental concerns regarding settlements of administrative appeals" and permit such intervenors to "block the approval of settlements on that basis." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Griswold v. Camputaro , supra, 177 Conn. App. at 799 , 173 A.3d 959 .

2016See, e.g., State v. Miranda, 260 Conn. 93 , 131, 794 A.2d 506 (§ 51-183c does not apply to sentencing hearings), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 902 , 123 S.Ct. 224 , 154 L.Ed.2d 175 (2002) ; Board of Education v. East Haven Education Assn., supra, 66 Conn.App. at 216 , 784 A.2d 958 (§ 51-183c does not apply to pretrial hearings or short calendar hearings).

2016See, e.g., State v. Miranda, 260 Conn. 93 , 131, 794 A.2d 506 (§ 51-183c does not apply to sentencing hearings), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 902 , 123 S.Ct. 224 , 154 L.Ed.2d 175 (2002) ; Board of Education v. East Haven Education Assn., supra, 66 Conn.App. at 216 , 784 A.2d 958 (§ 51-183c does not apply to pretrial hearings or short calendar hearings).

2012Thus, on appeal, [t]he plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that a hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling is arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) United Technologies Corp. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 72 Conn. App. 212, 228-29 , 804 A.2d 1033 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 920 , 812 A.2d 863 (2002); see also General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (agency’s decision shall be affirmed unless appellant’s substantial rights are prejudiced by agency’s abuse of discretion). “[N]ot all procedural irregularities require a reviewin

2012Thus, on appeal, [t]he plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that a hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling is arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) United Technologies Corp. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 72 Conn. App. 212, 228-29 , 804 A.2d 1033 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 920 , 812 A.2d 863 (2002); see also General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (agency’s decision shall be affirmed unless appellant’s substantial rights are prejudiced by agency’s abuse of discretion). “[N]ot all procedural irregularities require a reviewin

2012Thus, on appeal, [t]he plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that a hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling is arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) United Technologies Corp. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 72 Conn. App. 212, 228-29 , 804 A.2d 1033 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 920 , 812 A.2d 863 (2002); see also General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (agency’s decision shall be affirmed unless appellant’s substantial rights are prejudiced by agency’s abuse of discretion). “[N]ot all procedural irregularities require a reviewin

2012Thus, on appeal, [t]he plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that a hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling is arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) United Technologies Corp. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 72 Conn. App. 212, 228-29 , 804 A.2d 1033 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 920 , 812 A.2d 863 (2002); see also General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (agency’s decision shall be affirmed unless appellant’s substantial rights are prejudiced by agency’s abuse of discretion). “[N]ot all procedural irregularities require a reviewin

2012Thus, on appeal, [t]he plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that a hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling is arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) United Technologies Corp. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 72 Conn. App. 212, 228-29 , 804 A.2d 1033 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 920 , 812 A.2d 863 (2002); see also General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (agency’s decision shall be affirmed unless appellant’s substantial rights are prejudiced by agency’s abuse of discretion). “[N]ot all procedural irregularities require a reviewin

2012Thus, on appeal, [t]he plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that a hearing officer’s evidentiary ruling is arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) United Technologies Corp. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 72 Conn. App. 212, 228-29 , 804 A.2d 1033 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 920 , 812 A.2d 863 (2002); see also General Statutes § 4-183 (j) (agency’s decision shall be affirmed unless appellant’s substantial rights are prejudiced by agency’s abuse of discretion). “[N]ot all procedural irregularities require a reviewin

2001The court noted that under Ruddock v. Burrowes, 243 Conn. 569 , 706 A.2d 967 (1998), it was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if § 52-592 permitted the plaintiffs to bring the present action.

2001The court noted that under Ruddock v. Burrowes, 243 Conn. 569 , 706 A.2d 967 (1998), it was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if § 52-592 permitted the plaintiffs to bring the present action.

2001The trial court, as the reviewing authority, may render whatever judgment appropriately follows, as a matter of law, from the facts found by the attorney trial referee." (Citations omitted.) TDS Painting Restoration, Inc. v. Cooper Beach Farm, Inc., 45 Conn. App. 743 , 750-51 , 699 A.2d 173 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 908 , 701 A.2d 338 (1997) Section 19-16 (1998 Rev.) provides in part: "If exceptions or objections have been seasonably filed, the case should be claimed for the short calendar for hearing thereon; and the court may, upon the decision as to them, forthwith direct judgment to be ren

2001The trial court, as the reviewing authority, may render whatever judgment appropriately follows, as a matter of law, from the facts found by the attorney trial referee." (Citations omitted.) TDS Painting Restoration, Inc. v. Cooper Beach Farm, Inc., 45 Conn. App. 743 , 750-51 , 699 A.2d 173 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 908 , 701 A.2d 338 (1997) Section 19-16 (1998 Rev.) provides in part: "If exceptions or objections have been seasonably filed, the case should be claimed for the short calendar for hearing thereon; and the court may, upon the decision as to them, forthwith direct judgment to be ren

2001Paulus v. LaSala, 56 Conn. App. 139, 145-46 , 742 A.2d 379 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 928 , 746 A.2d 789 (2000). 7 In arriving at that conclusion, we did not read Practice Book (1999) § 19-16 in isolation, but in conjunction with Practice Book (1999) § 11-18, which provides in relevant part: “Oral argument is at the discretion of the judicial authority except as to motions to dismiss, motions to strike, motions for summary judgment, and motions for judgment of foreclosure.

2001Paulus v. LaSala, 56 Conn. App. 139, 145-46 , 742 A.2d 379 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 928 , 746 A.2d 789 (2000). 7 In arriving at that conclusion, we did not read Practice Book (1999) § 19-16 in isolation, but in conjunction with Practice Book (1999) § 11-18, which provides in relevant part: “Oral argument is at the discretion of the judicial authority except as to motions to dismiss, motions to strike, motions for summary judgment, and motions for judgment of foreclosure.

2001The trial court, as the reviewing authority, may render whatever judgment appropriately follows, as a matter of law, from the facts found by the attorney trial referee." (Citations omitted.) TDS Painting Restoration, Inc. v. Cooper Beach Farm, Inc., 45 Conn. App. 743 , 750-51 , 699 A.2d 173 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 908 , 701 A.2d 338 (1997) Section 19-16 (1998 Rev.) provides in part: "If exceptions or objections have been seasonably filed, the case should be claimed for the short calendar for hearing thereon; and the court may, upon the decision as to them, forthwith direct judgment to be ren

2001The trial court, as the reviewing authority, may render whatever judgment appropriately follows, as a matter of law, from the facts found by the attorney trial referee." (Citations omitted.) TDS Painting Restoration, Inc. v. Cooper Beach Farm, Inc., 45 Conn. App. 743 , 750-51 , 699 A.2d 173 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 908 , 701 A.2d 338 (1997) Section 19-16 (1998 Rev.) provides in part: "If exceptions or objections have been seasonably filed, the case should be claimed for the short calendar for hearing thereon; and the court may, upon the decision as to them, forthwith direct judgment to be ren

2001Paulus v. LaSala, 56 Conn. App. 139, 145-46 , 742 A.2d 379 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 928 , 746 A.2d 789 (2000). 7 In arriving at that conclusion, we did not read Practice Book (1999) § 19-16 in isolation, but in conjunction with Practice Book (1999) § 11-18, which provides in relevant part: “Oral argument is at the discretion of the judicial authority except as to motions to dismiss, motions to strike, motions for summary judgment, and motions for judgment of foreclosure.

2001Paulus v. LaSala, 56 Conn. App. 139, 145-46 , 742 A.2d 379 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 928 , 746 A.2d 789 (2000). 7 In arriving at that conclusion, we did not read Practice Book (1999) § 19-16 in isolation, but in conjunction with Practice Book (1999) § 11-18, which provides in relevant part: “Oral argument is at the discretion of the judicial authority except as to motions to dismiss, motions to strike, motions for summary judgment, and motions for judgment of foreclosure.

1998"It is fundamental that when issues of fact are disputed, due process requires an evidentiary hearing. . . ." Bradley's Appeal from Probate , 19 Conn. App. 456 , 467 , 563 A.2d 1358 (1989).

1998"It is fundamental that when issues of fact are disputed, due process requires an evidentiary hearing. . . ." Bradley's Appeal from Probate , 19 Conn. App. 456 , 467 , 563 A.2d 1358 (1989).