When, in any case arising under the provisions of this chapter, the Compensation Review Board is of the opinion that the decision involves principles of law which are not free from reasonable doubt and which public interest requires shall be determined by the Appellate Court, in order that a definite rule be established applicable to future cases, said Compensation Review Board may, on its own motion and without any agreement or act of the parties or their counsel, reserve such case for the opinion of the Appellate Court. Upon a reservation so made, no costs shall be taxed in favor of either party, and no entry fee, record fee, judgment fee or other clerk's fee in either court shall be taxed. Upon the filing of such a reservation, the question shall come before the Appellate Court as though an appeal had been taken, and said court shall thereupon reserve the case for the opinion of the Supreme Court in the manner herein indicated; but if, in the opinion of the Appellate Court, the principles of law involved in the decision are in fact free from reasonable doubt and the public interest does not in fact require that they be determined by the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court may, in its discretion, hear and determine the controversy as in other cases.
(1949 Rev., S. 7464; 1958 Rev., S. 31-191; 1961, P.A. 491, S. 50; P.A. 74-338, S. 51, 94; P.A. 76-436, S. 622, 681; P.A. 79-540, S. 7; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29, S. 31, 82; P.A. 91-339, Sec. 32, 55.)
History: 1961 act entirely replaced previous provisions; P.A. 74-338 replaced superior court with court of common pleas; P.A. 76-436 replaced court of common pleas with superior court, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 79-540 replaced superior court with compensation review division and supreme court with appellate session of superior court for purposes of section and deleted provisions re pro forma awards where commissioner believes a doubtful question of law is involved which public interest requires to be be finally and definitely determined; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29 deleted reference to appellate session of the superior court and added reference to appellate court; P.A. 91-339 changed “compensation review division” to “compensation review board”.
Cited. 94 C. 262; 95 C. 609. Effect of a pro forma award and function of an appeal. 116 C. 219. In absence of judgment, there can be no appeal to Supreme Court. 123 C. 102. Reservation can be made without any appeal or judgment when facts are not in dispute. 138 C. 620. Cited. 150 C. 154; 159 C. 53. Reservation from Court of Common Pleas and not Superior Court is the proper procedure to follow; reservation from Superior Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 168 C. 84. Cited. 213 C. 54; 232 C. 758.
Cited. 2 CA 363; 36 CA 150.
Cited. 8 CS 313.
Notes of Decisions
Barton v. Ducci Elec. Contractors, Inc., 730 A.2d 1149 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 13× “The board, acting pursuant to General Statutes § 31-324, 3 reserved the following two questions for the opin *798 ion of the Appellate Court: (1) Does § 31-308 (b) deprive the plaintiff of equal protection or due process of law under the fourteenth amendment to the United States…”
Giaimo v. City of New Haven, 778 A.2d 33 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 3× “*491 We also note that this court previously has considered a constitutional question reserved by the board to the Appellate Court pursuant to General Statutes § 31-324, which subsequently was transferred to this court.”
Kinney v. State, 498 U.S. 251 (1989).
· cites it 4× “In response to the defendant’s appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-301, the compensation review division, on its own motion, invoked the procedure authorized by General Statutes § 31-324, 2 to reserve to the Appellate Court the threshold jurisdictional issue of whether a…”
Bush v. Quality Bakers of Am., 479 A.2d 820 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984).
· cites it 4× “On January 29, 1982, the defendants filed a motion requesting the CRD to reserve for the Appellate Session of the Superior Court the constitutional challenge to § 31-297 (b) in accordance with then General Statutes § 31-324. 2 The CRD denied the motion for reservation on…”
Grover v. Town of Manchester, 357 A.2d 922 (Conn. 1975).
· cites it 4× “The commissioner also declined to decide the constitutional questions raised by the defendant town, and these questions, by stipulation, have been reserved to this court under the provisions of § 31-324 for reservations from the Superior Court, and § 31-301 for reservations from…”
Going v. Cromwell Fire Dist., 267 A.2d 428 (Conn. 1970).
· cites it 4× “The Superior Court reserved the matter for the advice of this court pursuant to General Statutes § 31-324. *55 The following facts were found by the commissioner: The plaintiff, when he sustained accidental injuries on March 31, 1968, while in the performance of fire duties, was…”
Everett v. Ingraham, 186 A.2d 798 (Conn. 1962).
· cites it 2× “The Superior Court has reserved this case for our opinion under what is now General Statutes § 31-324. In a pro forma ruling, the workmen’s compensation commissioner for the second *155 district determined that the plaintiff is not entitled to receive payment of an award of…”
Kinney v. State, 941 A.2d 907 (Conn. 2008).
“The state maintained that a state court judge is not an “employee” for purposes of workers’ compensation, and does not have an employer-employee relationship with the state.”
Zeoli v. Norwalk Hosp., 779 A.2d 78 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 4× “The hospital also filed with the board a petition for review and a motion for expedited reservation of the case to the Appellate Court pursuant to General Statutes § 31-324. 7 The fund moved to dismiss the hospital’s petition for review and motion to correct on the grounds that…”
Dixon v. United Illuminating Co., 657 A.2d 601 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 6× “The board, acting pursuant to General Statutes § 31-324, 2 reserved the case for the opinion of the Appellate Court on the following questions: 1.”
Byrd v. Bechtel/Fusco, 878 A.2d 1162 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiff also requests that the case be referred to either this court or the Supreme Court under General Statutes § 31-324. That request is inappropriate because the board has already made its determination.”
Dixon v. United Illuminating Co., 649 A.2d 538 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 4× “This appeal comes to us from the compensation review board pursuant to General Statutes § 31-324, which authorizes the board to reserve a case to this court if the board is “of the opinion that the decision involves principles of law which are not free from reasonable doubt and…”
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.