necessary prerequisite challenge in Connecticut

2002In Calnan v. Administrator, 43 Conn. App. 779 , 785 , 686 A.2d 134 (1996), the court stated that filing a motion with the board for correction of the findings "is a necessary prerequisite to a challenge to the board's decision." Accord Chavez v. Administrator 44 Conn. App. 105 , 106-07 , 686 A.2d 1014 (1997).

2002In Calnan v. Administrator, 43 Conn. App. 779 , 785 , 686 A.2d 134 (1996), the court stated that filing a motion with the board for correction of the findings "is a necessary prerequisite to a challenge to the board's decision." Accord Chavez v. Administrator 44 Conn. App. 105 , 106-07 , 686 A.2d 1014 (1997).

2002In Calnan v. Administrator, 43 Conn. App. 779 , 785 , 686 A.2d 134 (1996), the court stated that filing a motion with the board for correction of the findings "is a necessary prerequisite to a challenge to the board's decision." Accord Chavez v. Administrator 44 Conn. App. 105 , 106-07 , 686 A.2d 1014 (1997).

2002In Calnan v. Administrator, 43 Conn. App. 779 , 785 , 686 A.2d 134 (1996), the court stated that filing a motion with the board for correction of the findings "is a necessary prerequisite to a challenge to the board's decision." Accord Chavez v. Administrator 44 Conn. App. 105 , 106-07 , 686 A.2d 1014 (1997).

2001Practice Book § 22-4 provides in part that: "[i]f the appellant desires to have the finding of the board corrected he or she must, within two weeks after the record has been filed in the superior court . . . file with the board a motion for the correction of the finding and with it such portions of the evidence as he or she deems relevant and material to the corrections asked for, certified by the stenographer who took it." The filing of a motion to correct the findings with the board is "a necessary prerequisite to a challenge of the board's decision." Calnan v. Administrator, Unemployment Co

2001A motion for correction of the board's findings is "a necessary prerequisite to a challenge of the board's decision." Calnan v. Administrator , supra, 43 Conn. App. 785 .

2018Second, he argues that the admission of the former testimony violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment of the United States constitution, citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).

2018Second, he argues that the admission of the former testimony violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment of the United States constitution, citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).

2002In Parsons v. United Technologies Corp., 243 Conn. 66 , 700 A.2d 655 (1997), we again considered claims of wrongful discharge and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

2002In Parsons v. United Technologies Corp., 243 Conn. 66 , 700 A.2d 655 (1997), we again considered claims of wrongful discharge and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

2001"Where . . . the plaintiff has failed to file with the board a motion to correct the findings, the Court is bound by the finding of facts determined by the board." Leftridge v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act , Superior Court, judicial district of New London at Norwich, Docket No. 111502 (January 13, 1998, Purtill, J .), aff'd., 56 Conn. App. 901 , 741 A.2d 15 (1999).

2001"Where . . . the plaintiff has failed to file with the board a motion to correct the findings, the Court is bound by the finding of facts determined by the board." Leftridge v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act , Superior Court, judicial district of New London at Norwich, Docket No. 111502 (January 13, 1998, Purtill, J .), aff'd., 56 Conn. App. 901 , 741 A.2d 15 (1999).

1996In deciding a motion to strike the court should remember, "[t] he purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of a compliant . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Peter-Michael, Inc. v. Sea Shell Associates , 244 Conn. 269 , 270 , 709 A.2d 558 (1998).

1996In deciding a motion to strike the court should remember, "[t] he purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of a compliant . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Peter-Michael, Inc. v. Sea Shell Associates , 244 Conn. 269 , 270 , 709 A.2d 558 (1998).