declaratory judgment claim in Connecticut

2025See Cannata v. Dept. of Envi- ronmental Protection, supra, 215 Conn. 622 n.7 (noting conflict between cases and in dicta recognizing that cases, specifically including Aaron, may be distinguish- able or implicitly overruled); Board of Education v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 344 Conn. 603 , 621 n.19, 280 A.3d 424 (2022) (same).

2014The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that Travelers had standing to proceed in this declaratory judgment action under the factors set forth in Practice Book § 17-55 and Connecticut Business & Industry Assn., Inc. v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care, 218 Conn. 335 , 346–47, 589 A.2d 356 (1991).

2014The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that Travelers had standing to proceed in this declaratory judgment action under the factors set forth in Practice Book § 17-55 and Connecticut Business & Industry Assn., Inc. v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care, 218 Conn. 335 , 346–47, 589 A.2d 356 (1991).

2011The public pohcy considerations underlying the declaratory judgment exception to the general principle of res judicata were explained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Harborside Refrigerated Services, Inc. v. Vogel, supra, 959 F.2d 368 : “A common purpose behind both declaratory judgment availability and the doctrine of res judicata is litigation reduction and the conservation of judicial resources.

2011The public pohcy considerations underlying the declaratory judgment exception to the general principle of res judicata were explained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Harborside Refrigerated Services, Inc. v. Vogel, supra, 959 F.2d 368 : “A common purpose behind both declaratory judgment availability and the doctrine of res judicata is litigation reduction and the conservation of judicial resources.

1995This case is analogous to Sloane-Wheeler Corp. v. Odiseos, 154 Conn. 705 , 226 A.2d 508 (1967), in which this court dismissed an action for declaratory judgment for lack of jurisdiction because not all of the landowners in a forty acre tract were represented in the action to adjudicate whether building and use restrictions contained in each parcel’s deed were enforceable.

1995This case is analogous to Sloane-Wheeler Corp. v. Odiseos, 154 Conn. 705 , 226 A.2d 508 (1967), in which this court dismissed an action for declaratory judgment for lack of jurisdiction because not all of the landowners in a forty acre tract were represented in the action to adjudicate whether building and use restrictions contained in each parcel’s deed were enforceable.

1993Kelman v. Schaffer, 161 Conn. 522, 528 , 290 A.2d 327 (1971), was entitled to cure the lack of notice prior to a final judgment.

1993Kelman v. Schaffer, 161 Conn. 522, 528 , 290 A.2d 327 (1971), was entitled to cure the lack of notice prior to a final judgment.

1986The memorandum of decision in each case is incorrectly labeled “Judgment.” Unlike the situation in Echo Four v. Hill, 3 Conn. App. 118, 125 , 485 A.2d 926 (1985), the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim in this case does not cause the entire counterclaim to fail.

1986The memorandum of decision in each case is incorrectly labeled “Judgment.” Unlike the situation in Echo Four v. Hill, 3 Conn. App. 118, 125 , 485 A.2d 926 (1985), the court’s lack of jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim in this case does not cause the entire counterclaim to fail.

1969See Rathkopf v. Pearson, 148 Conn. 260, 264 , 170 A.2d 135 ; Rifkin v. Safenovitz, 131 Conn. 411 . 416. 40 A.2d 188 . *260 The plaintiffs make the additional claim that the trial court should have refused to entertain the action for a declaratory judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs had a more appropriate remedy under § 38-175 of the General Statutes and that the rendering of a declaratory judgment was in violation of Practice Book, 1951, § 277 (c) 4 (now Practice Book, 1963, § 309 [c]) and was therefore “erroneous and of no legal effect.” This is tantamount to a claim that the trial cou

1969See Rathkopf v. Pearson, 148 Conn. 260, 264 , 170 A.2d 135 ; Rifkin v. Safenovitz, 131 Conn. 411 . 416. 40 A.2d 188 . *260 The plaintiffs make the additional claim that the trial court should have refused to entertain the action for a declaratory judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs had a more appropriate remedy under § 38-175 of the General Statutes and that the rendering of a declaratory judgment was in violation of Practice Book, 1951, § 277 (c) 4 (now Practice Book, 1963, § 309 [c]) and was therefore “erroneous and of no legal effect.” This is tantamount to a claim that the trial cou