ten-day requirement in Connecticut

2002In Majernicek v. Hartford Casualty, Inc. Co. , 240 Conn. 86 , (1997) the Supreme Court stated: "[I]n enacting Section 38a-343 (a) the legislature appears to have intended to eliminate the potentially harsh consequences to an insured of driving without knowing that his or her policy was inoperative.

2002"Because the ALJ conducted a ten day hearing, in which the parties were allowed to present their witnesses, documentary evidence, oral arguments and briefs, and because the nature of that hearing did not carry any procedural limitations that would not be present at a later hearing, it is evident that the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue . . . and therefore, collateral estoppel applies." Id.

2001"Regardless of what date the document bears the date the document was filed is the operative date." Greco v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles , 61 Conn. App. 137 , 141 n. 7 (2000); Home Oil Co. v. Todd , 195 Conn. 333 , 343 (1985).

2001"Regardless of what date the document bears the date the document was filed is the operative date." Greco v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles , 61 Conn. App. 137 , 141 n. 7 (2000); Home Oil Co. v. Todd , 195 Conn. 333 , 343 (1985).

1997Finally, the Appellate Court has held that for collateral estoppel to preclude litigation of an issue, "there must be some avenue for review of the prior ruling on the issue." Monroe v. Renz , 46 Conn. App. 5 , 9 , (1997). "[R]elitigation of the issue in a subsequent action between the parties is not precluded [where the] party against whom preclusion is sought could not, as a matter of law, have obtained review of the judgment in the initial action." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id .

1997It however, failed to precede the set effective date; being coincident with such date. 2 Akin held: The obvious purpose of § 8-28 , requiring the publication in a newspaper of the decision of a commission, is twofold. (1) To give notice to interested parties of the decision, and (2) to commence the start of the fifteen-day appeal period." 163 Conn. at 73 . 3 Analogously the publication requirement of § 8-3 (d) has not only the purposes described in Akin , but also the purpose of providing notice of the action prior to the effective date of the action.

1995In support of his claim, the plaintiff principally relies on Baez v. Bane, 159 Misc. 2d 838 , 606 N.Y.S.2d 973 (1993).

1992CT Page 7215 The court, John F. Shea, Jr., J., in Stawicki v. Fraiser, 36 Conn. Sup. 343 , 344-45 , 420 A.2d 913 (1980), analyzed the ten day rule as follows: Section 52-215 of the General Statutes provides that within ten days after an issue of fact has been joined, the case may be claimed for the jury docket.

1992CT Page 7215 The court, John F. Shea, Jr., J., in Stawicki v. Fraiser, 36 Conn. Sup. 343 , 344-45 , 420 A.2d 913 (1980), analyzed the ten day rule as follows: Section 52-215 of the General Statutes provides that within ten days after an issue of fact has been joined, the case may be claimed for the jury docket.