de novo hearing in Connecticut

2005“The standard of review to be used by the board when reviewing a commissioner’s findings is set forth in Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 31-301-8. 1 That section directs the board not to retry the case before it, but to determine whether evidence supports the commissioner’s finding.” Dengler v. Special Attention Health Services, Inc., 62 Conn. App. 440, 447 , 774 A.2d 992 (2001). “[T]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. . . . [T]he powe

2005“The standard of review to be used by the board when reviewing a commissioner’s findings is set forth in Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 31-301-8. 1 That section directs the board not to retry the case before it, but to determine whether evidence supports the commissioner’s finding.” Dengler v. Special Attention Health Services, Inc., 62 Conn. App. 440, 447 , 774 A.2d 992 (2001). “[T]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. . . . [T]he powe

1994Prior to the briefing by the plaintiff of the issues on this appeal, he filed an "Objection to Record on Appeal" (File item 105), in which he sought to exclude certain documents in the record relating to the zoning enforcement officer's investigation on the ground that the board "had an obligation to review the actions of the Zoning Enforcement Officer at the time he issued the cease and desist order [and that any] subsequent actions are not relevant to the Appeal at hand." The plaintiff's objection was overruled by the court based on the standard of review stated in Caserta v. Zoning Board of

1994Prior to the briefing by the plaintiff of the issues on this appeal, he filed an "Objection to Record on Appeal" (File item 105) in which he sought to exclude certain documents in the record relating to the zoning enforcement officer's investigation on the ground that the board "had an obligation to review the actions of the Zoning Enforcement Officer at the time he issued the cease and desist order [and that any] subsequent actions are not relevant to the Appeal at hand." The plaintiff's objection was overruled by the court based on the standard of review stated in Caserta v. Zoning Board of

2001“The review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is [obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mulroy v. Becton Dickinson Co., 48 Conn. App. 774, 776 , 712 A.2d 436 (1998), quoting Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535, 538-39 , 542 A.2d 1118 (1988).

2001“The review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is [obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mulroy v. Becton Dickinson Co., 48 Conn. App. 774, 776 , 712 A.2d 436 (1998), quoting Fair v. People’s Savings Bank, 207 Conn. 535, 538-39 , 542 A.2d 1118 (1988).

1997The appropriate standard applicable to the review board when reviewing a decision of a commissioner is well established. “[T]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. . . . [T]he power and duty of determining the facts rests on the commissioner, the trier of facts. . . . [T]he conclusions drawn by him from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unr

1997The appropriate standard applicable to the review board when reviewing a decision of a commissioner is well established. “[T]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. . . . [T]he power and duty of determining the facts rests on the commissioner, the trier of facts. . . . [T]he conclusions drawn by him from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unr

2005“The standard of review to be used by the board when reviewing a commissioner’s findings is set forth in Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 31-301-8. 1 That section directs the board not to retry the case before it, but to determine whether evidence supports the commissioner’s finding.” Dengler v. Special Attention Health Services, Inc., 62 Conn. App. 440, 447 , 774 A.2d 992 (2001). “[T]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. . . . [T]he powe

2005“The standard of review to be used by the board when reviewing a commissioner’s findings is set forth in Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 31-301-8. 1 That section directs the board not to retry the case before it, but to determine whether evidence supports the commissioner’s finding.” Dengler v. Special Attention Health Services, Inc., 62 Conn. App. 440, 447 , 774 A.2d 992 (2001). “[T]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. . . . [T]he powe

1997The appropriate standard applicable to the review board when reviewing a decision of a commissioner is well established. “[T]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. . . . [T]he power and duty of determining the facts rests on the commissioner, the trier of facts. . . . [T]he conclusions drawn by him from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unr

1997The appropriate standard applicable to the review board when reviewing a decision of a commissioner is well established. “[T]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. . . . [T]he power and duty of determining the facts rests on the commissioner, the trier of facts. . . . [T]he conclusions drawn by him from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unr

2020The board’s ‘‘hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is oblig[ated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sellers v. Sellers Garage, Inc., 92 Conn. App. 650, 651 , 887 A.2d 382 (2005). ‘‘[T]he power and duty of determining the facts [rest] on the commis- sioner, the trier of facts. . . .

2020The board’s ‘‘hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is oblig[ated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sellers v. Sellers Garage, Inc., 92 Conn. App. 650, 651 , 887 A.2d 382 (2005). ‘‘[T]he power and duty of determining the facts [rest] on the commis- sioner, the trier of facts. . . .

2020In such circumstances, an appellate court employs the de novo standard of review.’’ In re Stephen M., 109 Conn. App. 644, 658 , 953 A.2d 668 (2008).

2020In such circumstances, an appellate court employs the de novo standard of review.’’ In re Stephen M., 109 Conn. App. 644, 658 , 953 A.2d 668 (2008).

2017We then posited that, "[o]n the other hand, a de novo standard would be more consistent with the oft stated rule that [t]he interpretation of pleadings is always a question of law for the court and that our interpretation of the pleadings therefore is plenary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 799-800 , 945 A.2d 955 .

2017We then posited that, "[o]n the other hand, a de novo standard would be more consistent with the oft stated rule that [t]he interpretation of pleadings is always a question of law for the court and that our interpretation of the pleadings therefore is plenary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 799-800 , 945 A.2d 955 .

2000“The appropriate standard applicable to the board when reviewing a decision of a commissioner is well established. [T]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. . . . [T]he power and duty of determining the facts rests on the commissioner, the trier of facts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) O’Reilly v. General Dynamics Corp., 52 Conn. App. 813, 815-16 , 728 A.2d 527 (1999).

2000“The appropriate standard applicable to the board when reviewing a decision of a commissioner is well established. [T]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. . . . [T]he power and duty of determining the facts rests on the commissioner, the trier of facts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) O’Reilly v. General Dynamics Corp., 52 Conn. App. 813, 815-16 , 728 A.2d 527 (1999).

2006“As in ah matters of statutory interpretation, we apply a de novo standard of review on appeal because the issue is one of law.” Autotote Enterprises, Inc. v. State, 278 Conn. 150, 160 , 898 A.2d 141 (2006).

2006“As in ah matters of statutory interpretation, we apply a de novo standard of review on appeal because the issue is one of law.” Autotote Enterprises, Inc. v. State, 278 Conn. 150, 160 , 898 A.2d 141 (2006).

2005We note that “[t]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. [T]he power and duty of determining the facts rests on the commissioner, the trier of facts. . . . [T]he conclusions drawn by him from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rogers v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 45 Conn. App. 204

2005We note that “[t]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. [T]he power and duty of determining the facts rests on the commissioner, the trier of facts. . . . [T]he conclusions drawn by him from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rogers v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 45 Conn. App. 204

2005“The standard of review to be used by the board when reviewing a commissioner’s findings is set forth in Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 31-301-8. 1 That section directs the board not to retry the case before it, but to determine whether evidence supports the commissioner’s finding.” Dengler v. Special Attention Health Services, Inc., 62 Conn. App. 440, 447 , 774 A.2d 992 (2001). “[T]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. . . . [T]he powe

2005“The standard of review to be used by the board when reviewing a commissioner’s findings is set forth in Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 31-301-8. 1 That section directs the board not to retry the case before it, but to determine whether evidence supports the commissioner’s finding.” Dengler v. Special Attention Health Services, Inc., 62 Conn. App. 440, 447 , 774 A.2d 992 (2001). “[T]he review [board’s] hearing of an appeal from the commissioner is not a de novo hearing of the facts. . . . [I]t is obligated] to hear the appeal on the record and not retry the facts. . . . [T]he powe

2005“On appeal, the board must determine whether there is any evidence in the record to support the commissioner’s findings and award.” Bryan v. Sheraton-Hartford Hotel, 62 Conn. App. 733, 739 , 774 A.2d 1009 (2001).

2005“On appeal, the board must determine whether there is any evidence in the record to support the commissioner’s findings and award.” Bryan v. Sheraton-Hartford Hotel, 62 Conn. App. 733, 739 , 774 A.2d 1009 (2001).

1999“Our role is to determine whether the review [board’s] decision results from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aurora v. Miami Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 6 Conn. App. 45, 47 , 502 A.2d 952 (1986).

1999“Our role is to determine whether the review [board’s] decision results from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aurora v. Miami Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 6 Conn. App. 45, 47 , 502 A.2d 952 (1986).

1994The plaintiff's initial brief attacked the zoning regulation on various constitutional grounds including that of "impermissible vagueness" and devoted one section of his argument (pp. 20-22) to the claim that the definition of "boarding house" in the zoning ordinance is "unconstitutional in that there is no rational basis to exclude it from a RAR 40/MF Zone." At the time of the hearing on the plaintiff's objection to the record on appeal, the court directed counsel's attention to the cases of Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas , 416 U.S. 1 (1974) and Elliott v. City of Athens, Georgia , 960 F.2d

1994The plaintiff's initial brief attacked the zoning regulation on various constitutional grounds including that of "impermissible vagueness" and devoted one section of his argument (pp. 20-22) to the claim that the definition of "boarding house" in the zoning ordinance is "unconstitutional in that there is no rational basis to exclude it from a PAR 40/MF Zone." At the time of the hearing on the plaintiff's objection to the record on appeal, the court directed counsel's attention to the cases of Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) and Elliott v. City of Athens Georgia, 960 F.2d 97

1994The plaintiff's initial brief attacked the zoning regulation on various constitutional grounds including that of "impermissible vagueness" and devoted one section of his argument (pp. 20-22) to the claim that the definition of "boarding house" in the zoning ordinance is "unconstitutional in that there is no rational basis to exclude it from a RAR 40/MF Zone." At the time of the hearing on the plaintiff's objection to the record on appeal, the court directed counsel's attention to the cases of Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas , 416 U.S. 1 (1974) and Elliott v. City of Athens, Georgia , 960 F.2d

1994The plaintiff's initial brief attacked the zoning regulation on various constitutional grounds including that of "impermissible vagueness" and devoted one section of his argument (pp. 20-22) to the claim that the definition of "boarding house" in the zoning ordinance is "unconstitutional in that there is no rational basis to exclude it from a PAR 40/MF Zone." At the time of the hearing on the plaintiff's objection to the record on appeal, the court directed counsel's attention to the cases of Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) and Elliott v. City of Athens Georgia, 960 F.2d 97

1994The plaintiff's initial brief attacked the zoning regulation on various constitutional grounds including that of "impermissible vagueness" and devoted one section of his argument (pp. 20-22) to the claim that the definition of "boarding house" in the zoning ordinance is "unconstitutional in that there is no rational basis to exclude it from a RAR 40/MF Zone." At the time of the hearing on the plaintiff's objection to the record on appeal, the court directed counsel's attention to the cases of Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas , 416 U.S. 1 (1974) and Elliott v. City of Athens, Georgia , 960 F.2d

1994The plaintiff's initial brief attacked the zoning regulation on various constitutional grounds including that of "impermissible vagueness" and devoted one section of his argument (pp. 20-22) to the claim that the definition of "boarding house" in the zoning ordinance is "unconstitutional in that there is no rational basis to exclude it from a PAR 40/MF Zone." At the time of the hearing on the plaintiff's objection to the record on appeal, the court directed counsel's attention to the cases of Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) and Elliott v. City of Athens Georgia, 960 F.2d 97