In a contested case, the presiding officer may administer oaths, take testimony under oath relative to the case, subpoena witnesses and require the production of records, physical evidence, papers and documents to any hearing held in the case. If any person disobeys the subpoena or, having appeared, refuses to answer any question put to him or to produce any records, physical evidence, papers and documents requested by the presiding officer, the agency may apply to the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford or for the judicial district in which the person resides, or to any judge of that court if it is not in session, setting forth the disobedience to the subpoena or refusal to answer or produce, and the court or judge shall cite the person to appear before the court or judge to show cause why the records, physical evidence, papers and documents should not be produced or why a question put to him should not be answered. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the agency or any party as otherwise allowed by law.
(P.A. 88-230, S. 1, 12; 88-317, S. 15, 107; P.A. 90-98, S. 1, 2; P.A. 93-142, S. 4, 7, 8; P.A. 95-220, S. 4–6.)
History: P.A. 88-230 required substitution of “judicial district of Hartford” for “judicial district of Hartford-New Britain”, effective September 1, 1991; P.A. 88-317 effective July 1, 1989, and applicable to all agency proceedings commencing on or after that date; P.A. 90-98 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1991, to September 1, 1993; P.A. 93-142 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1993, to September 1, 1996, effective June 14, 1993; P.A. 95-220 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1996, to September 1, 1998, effective July 1, 1995.
Cited. 239 C. 32.
Cited. 37 CA 653; judgment reversed, see 238 C. 361.
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 930 A.2d 739 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 3× “" Likewise, § 1-21j-8 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies vests broad powers in the commission's hearing officers.”
E.K. v. Stamford Bd. of Educ., 557 F. Supp. 2d 272 (D. Conn. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Conn.Gen.Stat. § 4-177b. 2 . The publicized school policies were publicized in the Board’s Administrative Regulation 5131-R.”
Town of Fairfield v. Connecticut Siting Council, 656 A.2d 1067 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Parker and the town of Fairfield in violation of General Statutes § 4-177a (a), the failure to give adequate notice in violation of statutory provisions (General Statutes § 4-177 has specific notice requirements in contested cases), the failure to have a full evidentiary hearing…”
Lucarelli v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 43 A.3d 237 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 4-177b provides in relevant part that “[i]n a contested case, the presiding officer may .”
Adoption Servs. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Ragaglia, 178 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D. Conn. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 4-177b. Each party is entitled to present evidence and argument, cross-examine witnesses and inspect relevant documents in the possession of the parties.”
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.