(a) Any party may obtain judicial review of an order issued on an application for a certificate or an amendment of a certificate in accordance with the provisions of section
4-183. Any judicial review sought pursuant to this chapter shall be privileged in respect to assignment for trial in the Superior Court.
(b) On and after October 1, 2025, if a municipality seeks judicial review under this section, and such municipality is a prevailing party in the action, the court may award the municipality reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No public service company may recover any such attorneys' fees or costs awarded by a court through rates if the court finds that the public service company acted imprudently in the application process or petition and such imprudence was the primary cause of the municipality prevailing in such action.
(1971, P.A. 575, S. 11; 1972, P.A. 108, S. 3; P.A. 73-458, S. 9; P.A. 76-436, S. 360, 681; P.A. 77-603, S. 14, 125; P.A. 24-144, S. 6.)
History: 1972 act replaced superior court with court of common pleas, effective September 1, 1972, except that courts with cases pending retain jurisdiction; P.A. 73-458 deleted provisions re rehearing on applications as intermediate step to judicial review and deleted provision re finding of facts de novo; P.A. 76-436 replaced court of common pleas with superior court and added reference to judicial districts, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 77-603 replaced previous provision detailing procedure for judicial review with statement that review to be obtained in accordance with Sec. 4-183; P.A. 24-144 designated existing provisions as Subsec. (a) and added Subsec. (b) re awarding attorneys' fees and costs to municipalities that are prevailing parties in an action.
Since appellate review for both issuance of original certificates and for amendments thereto is provided for, it is not intended that application for amendment opens, for all purposes including appellate review, the previously issued granting of certification. 177 C. 623. Cited. 212 C. 157; 220 C. 516.
Cited. 37 CA 653; judgment reversed, see 238 C. 361. Section does not confer automatic statutory aggrievement on parties to appeal adverse decision of council. 133 CA 851.
Notes of Decisions
Brouillard v. Connecticut Siting Council, 38 A.3d 174 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 14× “After determining that General Statutes § 16-50q was ambiguous, the court engaged in a thorough interpretation of the statutory provision, and ultimately concluded that § 16-50q does not confer automatic aggrievement for purposes of appellate review.”
Brouillard v. Connecticut Siting Council, 39 A.3d 1241 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 15× “General Statutes § 16-50q. The UAPA generally requires that only persons who are “aggrieved” can *198 appeal.”
Tarnopol v. Connecticut Siting Council, 561 A.2d 931 (Conn. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Judicial review of orders issued by the council either granting or denying applications for certificates is governed by General Statutes § 16-50q, which provides that appeals must be filed “in accordance with the provisions of section 4-183.”
Town of Killingly v. Connecticut Siting Council, 600 A.2d 752 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Appeals from decisions of the siting council are governed by General Statutes § 16-50q, *520 which provides in relevant part that “[a]ny party may obtain judicial review of an order issued on an application for a certificate or an amendment of a certificate in accordance with…”
Haynes v. Power Facility Evaluation Council, 419 A.2d 342 (Conn. 1979).
· cites it 2× “At the time the October 25,1976 decision was published, § 16-50q provided that judicial review could be initiated by the filing of a petition with the Court of Common Pleas within thirty days after the publication of such order.”
Town of Westport v. Connecticut Siting Council, 796 A.2d 510 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 16-50q provides: “Any party may obtain judicial review of an order issued on an application for a certificate or an amendment of a certificate in accordance with the provisions of section 4-183.”
Corcoran v. Connecticut Siting Council, 934 A.2d 870 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 2× “nd that it contains errors of law in light of the whole record, on the following grounds: (1) the decision violates the New Canaan zoning regulations; (2) the decision violates the New Canaan plan of conservation and development by impairing a scenic vista; (3) the decision…”
Jaeger v. Connecticut Siting Council, 18 A.3d 693 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 3× “It is an appeal under the UAPA as authorized by General Statutes § 16-50q: “Any party may obtain judicial review of an order issued on an application for a certificate [by the CSC] .”
Bornemann v. Connecticut Siting Council, 947 A.2d 302 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” 6 General Statutes § 16-50q provides: “Any party may obtain judicial review of an order issued on an application for a certificate or an amendment of a certificate in accordance with the provisions of section 4-183.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.