(a) If a provision of the general statutes, a regulation or a final decision, or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair, the legal rights or privileges of the plaintiff and if an agency (1) does not take an action required by subdivision (1), (2) or (3) of subsection (e) of section
4-176, within sixty days of the filing of a petition for a declaratory ruling, (2) decides not to issue a declaratory ruling under subdivision (4) or (5) of subsection (e) of said section
4-176, or (3) is deemed to have decided not to issue a declaratory ruling under subsection (i) of said section
4-176, the petitioner may seek in the Superior Court a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the regulation in question or the applicability of the provision of the general statutes, the regulation or the final decision in question to specified circumstances. The agency shall be made a party to the action.
(b) When the action for declaratory judgment concerns the applicability or validity of a regulation, the agency shall, within thirty days after service of the complaint, transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the regulation-making record relating to the regulation. The court may order the agency to transcribe any portion of the regulation-making record that has not been transcribed and transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the transcription. By stipulation of all parties, the record may be shortened. A party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the record may be taxed by the court for the additional costs.
(1971, P.A. 854, S. 10; P.A. 73-620, S. 7, 19; P.A. 76-436, S. 251, 681; P.A. 78-280, S. 5, 127; P.A. 88-230, S. 1, 12; 88-317, S. 9, 107.)
History: P.A. 73-620 included regulations and agency orders, deleting references to rules and changed basis for rendering declaratory judgments; P.A. 76-436 replaced court of common pleas with superior court, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 78-280 replaced “Hartford county” with “the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain”; P.A. 88-230 proposed to replace reference to “judicial district of Hartford-New Britain” with “judicial district of Hartford” effective September 1, 1991, but said reference was deleted by P.A. 88-317; P.A. 88-317 designated former provisions as Subsec. (a), amended Subsec. (a) to allow action re applicability of provision of general statutes and to substantially revise agency action or inaction required before declaratory judgment may be sought and added Subsec. (b) re transmission of regulation-making record to court, effective July 1, 1989, and applicable to agency proceedings commencing on or after that date.
Jurisdiction under section which specifically provides for declaratory judgments under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act depends on whether plaintiff's rights or privileges have been threatened or impaired. 165 C. 448. Cited. 171 C. 691; 172 C. 263; 173 C. 352; 178 C. 586; 183 C. 76; 186 C. 153; 191 C. 173; 192 C. 460; 194 C. 165; 197 C. 554; 199 C. 609; 204 C. 67; 207 C. 346; 208 C. 663; 211 C. 436; 214 C. 256; 215 C. 616; 218 C. 335; 219 C. 520; 222 C. 414; 239 C. 32; Id., 124; Id., 599. Declaratory judgment procedures under section and Sec. 4-176 may not be used to bypass obligation to exhaust remedies in context of pending administrative proceeding; issuance of second chance notice under Sec. 4-182(c) does not on its own constitute institution of agency proceedings that would give plaintiff access to administrative remedy. 315 C. 196.
Cited. 1 CA 1; 6 CA 723; 17 CA 17; judgment reversed, see 212 C. 570; 34 CA 123. Court found no requirement that prisoner have a liberty interest before he can seek a determination as to validity of agency regulation that he claims interferes with or impairs or threatens to interfere with or impair his legal rights or privileges. 64 CA 258. Owner of land abutting property on which Department of Public Health recommended installation of a subsurface sewage disposal system does not have standing to challenge recommendation since no statute, regulation or decision applied to the facts. 65 CA 201. Jurisdictional challenges are within the purview of administrative agency and there exists no broad exception to the exhaustion requirement for challenges to the jurisdiction of an administrative agency; plaintiff was obligated to raise its challenge to the jurisdiction of the commission in the pending administrative proceedings and, if necessary, an appeal pursuant to Sec. 4-183 or a subsequent declaratory petition pursuant to Sec. 4-176. 180 CA 478.
Procedure to challenge regulation. 32 CS 153. Cited. 33 CS 86; 35 CS 13; 39 CS 99; Id., 462.
Notes of Decisions
Pinchbeck v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 782 A.2d 242 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 14× “2 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) determined that she lacked standing to bring a declaratory judgment action pursu *203 ant to General Statutes § 4-175 3 and (2) concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the case despite an earlier, contrary ruling.”
Metro. Dist. v. Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 184 A.3d 287 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 15× “See General Statutes §§ 4-166 (3) 9 [now (5) ] and 4-176 (h). 10 In addition, if an agency declines to issue a declaratory ruling, the person who requested the ruling may bring a declaratory judgment action [in the Superior Court] pursuant to General Statutes § 4-175 (a).”
Connecticut Bus. & Indus. Ass'n v. Comm'n on Hospitals & Health Care, 589 A.2d 356 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 10× “In this appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly dismissed their action for a declaratory judgment under General Statutes §§ 4-175, 4-176 and 52-29 (a) 1 for failure to exhaust available *337 administrative remedies.”
Tucker v. Maher, 472 A.2d 1261 (Conn. 1984).
· cites it 13× “Regarding the third and fourth counts, Maher interposed a special defense of lack of jurisdiction to give declaratory relief claiming that all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint were not parties to the action or were not given reasonable notice of…”
Connecticut Life & Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Jackson, 377 A.2d 1099 (Conn. 1977).
· cites it 6× “The trial court determined that the plaintiff had an administrative remedy consisting of a petition to the insurance commissioner for a declaratory judgment ruling pursuant to General Statutes § 4-176 2 which could be reviewed in the Court of Common Pleas, as provided by General…”
Stefanoni v. Dep't of Econ. & Cmty. Dev., 70 A.3d 61 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 18× “The plaintiffs brought the trial court action, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-175, 4 after the defendant, commissioner of the defendant department of economic and community development (department), 5 denied the plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory ruling, made pursuant to…”
Jefferson Solar, LLC v. Dept. of Energy & Env't Prot., 224 Conn. App. 688 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 19× “After the defendant Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (department) declined to issue the plaintiff’s requested declaratory ruling pursuant to General Statutes § 4-176 (e), the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment in the Superior Court pursuant to General…”
Connecticut Ass'n of Boards of Educ., Inc. v. Shedd, 499 A.2d 797 (Conn. 1985).
· cites it 6× “General Statutes § 4-175 provides as follows: “The validity or applica *561 bility of a regulation or order of an agency may be determined in an action for declaratory judgment brought in the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain, if the regulation or…”
Cannata v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 680 A.2d 1329 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 6× “20 The defendants fur *137 ther note that, if the plaintiffs had regarded their request as one for a declaratory ruling under § 4-176, they likely would have initiated a declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court after the commissioner had failed to issue a ruling within…”
Cannata v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 577 A.2d 1017 (Conn. 1990).
· cites it 4× “’’An adverse ruling by the agency is appealable under General Statutes § 4-183 and the failure of an agency to issue a ruling per *630 mits an action for a declaratory judgment under General Statutes § 4-175. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care v.”
Connecticut Ass'n of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Worrell, 508 A.2d 743 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 4× “” Pursuant to General Statutes § 4-175, 2 the plaintiffs separately commenced the present actions in the Superior Court, seeking declaratory judgments that chap *612 ter 306 of our statutes requires the department to accept as a patient any person committed to a state hospital…”
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.