scheduled hearing in Connecticut

2024The state countered that, although the court did not list the three core constitutional rights delineated in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 , 89 S. Ct. 1709 , 23 L.

2024The state countered that, although the court did not list the three core constitutional rights delineated in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 , 89 S. Ct. 1709 , 23 L.

2021Id. 7 In her March 30, 2016 ruling, the commissioner made the following conclusion: ‘‘Vaccaro was provided with statutory notice of the March 22, 2016 formal proceeding on remand from the Compensation Review Board nearly four weeks in advance of the scheduled hearing.

2020Co., 275 Conn. 408, 418 , 880 A.2d 882 (2005). 4 Section 31-237g-26 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides in relevant part: ‘‘(c) If the appealing party appears at a scheduled hearing, but any non-appealing party fails to appear, the Referee shall pro- ceed with the hearing and take the testimony, evidence, and argument put forward by those present, consider the documentary record established by the Administrator and thereafter issue a decision on the merits of the appeal provided that the Referee may reschedule the hearing if the Referee deter- mines that good cause exists

2020Co., 275 Conn. 408, 418 , 880 A.2d 882 (2005). 4 Section 31-237g-26 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides in relevant part: ‘‘(c) If the appealing party appears at a scheduled hearing, but any non-appealing party fails to appear, the Referee shall pro- ceed with the hearing and take the testimony, evidence, and argument put forward by those present, consider the documentary record established by the Administrator and thereafter issue a decision on the merits of the appeal provided that the Referee may reschedule the hearing if the Referee deter- mines that good cause exists

2016Additionally, the court drew an adverse inference with respect to the issue of cohabitation because the plaintiff failed to appear to testify at the scheduled hearing. ‘‘[A] trier of fact gener- ally may draw an adverse inference against a party for its failure to rebut evidence.’’ In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 637 , 847 A.2d 883 (2004). ‘‘After a prima facie case is established, an adverse inference may be drawn against a party for his or her failure to testify, unless the party was entitled to rely upon one of the few exceptional privileges that carry with it a protection from adverse in

2016Additionally, the court drew an adverse inference with respect to the issue of cohabitation because the plaintiff failed to appear to testify at the scheduled hearing. ‘‘[A] trier of fact gener- ally may draw an adverse inference against a party for its failure to rebut evidence.’’ In re Samantha C., 268 Conn. 614, 637 , 847 A.2d 883 (2004). ‘‘After a prima facie case is established, an adverse inference may be drawn against a party for his or her failure to testify, unless the party was entitled to rely upon one of the few exceptional privileges that carry with it a protection from adverse in

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

2012Id., 64 .

1999The trial court scheduled a hearing for February 29, 1996, to determine whether the state met the requirements articulated in State v. Jarzbek, supra, 204 Conn. 683 .

1999The trial court scheduled a hearing for February 29, 1996, to determine whether the state met the requirements articulated in State v. Jarzbek, supra, 204 Conn. 683 .

1996The defendant argues that, according to State v. Schaeffer, 5 Conn. App. 378 , 498 A.2d 134 (1985), the trial court had a mandatory obligation to afford him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas once it concluded that it could not impose a sentence previously agreed upon.

1996The defendant argues that, according to State v. Schaeffer, 5 Conn. App. 378 , 498 A.2d 134 (1985), the trial court had a mandatory obligation to afford him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas once it concluded that it could not impose a sentence previously agreed upon.

1995Such reconsideration became unnecessary when, prior to the scheduled hearing before this court, the Supreme Court decided State v. Morales, supra, 232 Conn. 707 , thereby reinstating the Asherman test.

1995Because State v. Morales, supra, 232 Conn. 707 , was not decided until after the trial in the present case, the trial court had not conducted the balancing test with respect to the shanks and the paper bag as required by Asherman .