In contested cases: (1) Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the agency shall, as a matter of policy, provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence; (2) agencies shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law; (3) when a hearing will be expedited and the interests of the parties will not be prejudiced substantially, any part of the evidence may be received in written form; (4) documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily available, and upon request, parties and the agency conducting the proceeding shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original; (5) a party and such agency may conduct cross-examinations required for a full and true disclosure of the facts; (6) notice may be taken of judicially cognizable facts and of generally recognized technical or scientific facts within the agency's specialized knowledge; (7) parties shall be notified in a timely manner of any material noticed, including any agency memoranda or data, and they shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the material so noticed; and (8) the agency's experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge may be used in the evaluation of the evidence.
(1971, P.A. 854, S. 13; P.A. 73-620, S. 11, 19; P.A. 88-317, S. 14, 107.)
History: P.A. 73-620 deleted former provisions regarding rules of evidence and objections to evidentiary offers, replacing them with allowance for any oral or documentary evidence; P.A. 88-317 made minor and technical changes and renumbered the subdivisions, effective July 1, 1989, and applicable to all agency proceedings commencing on or after that date.
Evidence concerning charges not included in notice to teacher re hearing under Sec. 10-151(b) is irrelevant. 167 C. 368. Having decided to proceed without counsel, plaintiff cannot claim he was prejudiced by admission of evidence to which he did not object. 168 C. 94. Cited. Id., 435; 170 C. 141; 171 C. 691; Id., 705; 172 C. 263; 173 C. 462; 177 C. 78; Id., 344; 183 C. 128; 186 C. 153; 191 C. 173; 211 C. 508; 215 C. 474; Id., 616; 216 C. 627; 218 C. 256; 220 C. 86; 223 C. 618; 226 C. 105; 228 C. 651; 231 C. 602; 237 C. 209; 239 C. 32.
Cited. 1 CA 1; 4 CA 307; Id., 359; 9 CA 622; 10 CA 90; 22 CA 181, 189; Id., 193; 24 CA 662; judgment reversed, see 223 C. 618; 27 CA 346; 33 CA 727; 34 CA 123; 37 CA 653; judgment reversed, see 238 C. 361. Subdiv. (8): Although parties are entitled to notice of any nonrecord facts that will constitute proof in a case, the composition of an administrative board, as well as statute, put plaintiff on notice that the board would use its own expertise when determining whether plaintiff's alleged acts conformed to the standard of care. 60 CA 775. Subdiv. (1): Evidence of how department treated other waste facilities, in the absence of a claim for selective enforcement, was properly excluded as it had no logical tendency to aid the trier in determination of the issues of whether plaintiff misrepresented and omitted pertinent facts to department and failed to comply with requirements of the general permit. 179 CA 127.
Subdiv. (4): Notice requirements are to protect parties from surprising and unexpected material or evidence; previous findings of Insurance Commissioner in same matter not prejudicial. 32 CS 257. Cited. 34 CS 225; 36 CS 18; 39 CS 99; Id., 462; 42 CS 1; Id., 413; Id., 602; 44 CS 21. Subdiv. (1): Hearsay evidence may be admitted as long as it is reliable and probative. 47 CS 228.
Notes of Decisions
Pet v. Dep't of Health Servs., 638 A.2d 6 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 12× “General Statutes § 4-178 (Rev. to 1987). That statute is general and essentially permissive in nature.”
Levinson v. Connecticut Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 560 A.2d 403 (Conn. 1989).
· cites it 10× “Further support for our position is found in General Statutes § 4-178 (4) of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), which provides that any agency may use its experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge in the evaluation of the evidence in contested…”
Lawrence v. Kozlowski, 372 A.2d 110 (Conn. 1976).
· cites it 4× “” Although the coroner in the instant ease failed to submit a certified copy of his report, that defect is not fatal to the exhibit’s admissibility, as the plaintiff argues, because this objection was not raised at the hearing, as required by General Statutes § 4-178 (1).”
Wasfi v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 761 A.2d 257 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000).
· cites it 14× “The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the board did not violate (1) General Statutes § 4-178 (7) and principles of due process by applying its specialized knowledge to the facts of this case and (2) either its statutory authority or the plaintiffs due…”
New England Rehab. Hosp. of Hartford, Inc. v. Comm'n on Hospitals & Health Care, 627 A.2d 1257 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Although General Statutes § 4-178 (5) expressly provides for the right to cross-examine witnesses in contested hearings conducted by agencies, the trial court reasoned that general investigations pursuant to § 19a-149 are not contested cases as defined in General Statutes §…”
Marshall v. DelPonte, 606 A.2d 716 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 6× “See General Statutes § 4-178 (6). Even if he had, General Statutes § 4-178 (7) prohibited him from relying on either his own expertise or on judicial notice unless he first notified the parties in a timely manner in order to afford them an opportunity to contest that material.”
Altholtz v. Connecticut Dental Comm'n, 493 A.2d 917 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985).
· cites it 6× “General Statutes § 4-178, which is part of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act; General Statutes §§ 4-166 through 4-189; permits the admission of written evidence in contested cases unless it will substantially prejudice a party.”
Dragan v. Connecticut Med. Examining Bd., 613 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Although the plaintiff alleged in his petition to appeal to the Superior Court that the board had violated General Statutes § 4-178, a review of the plaintiffs memorandum of law submitted in support of his petition makes it clear that the plaintiff was not alleging a violation…”
Connecticut Nat. Gas Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Control Auth., 439 A.2d 282 (Conn. 1981).
· cites it 4× “Under those requirements the PUCA shall afford all parties an opportunity “to respond and present evidence and argument on all issues involved”; General Statutes §4-177(e); and to “conduct cross-examinations required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.”
Recycling, Inc. v. Comm'r of Energy & Env't Prot., 178 A.3d 1043 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 4× “) The trial court concluded that "the hearing officer did not deny due process in her ruling, made under the UAPA's § 4-178 (1) evidentiary standard." We begin by setting forth the applicable standard of review and legal principles that guide our analysis.”
Carlson v. Kozlowski, 374 A.2d 207 (Conn. 1977).
· cites it 4× “Subject to these requirements, when a hearing will be expedited and the interests of the parties will not be prejudiced substantially, any part of the evidence may be received in written form.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-178(1) — 1 case
Recycling, Inc. v. Comm'r of Energy & Env't Prot., 178 A.3d 1043 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
“) The trial court concluded that "the hearing officer did not deny due process in her ruling, made under the UAPA's § 4-178 (1) evidentiary standard." We begin by setting forth the applicable standard of review and legal principles that guide our analysis.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-178(3) — 1 case
Connecticut Nat. Gas Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Control Auth., 439 A.2d 282 (Conn. 1981).
“Under those requirements the PUCA shall afford all parties an opportunity “to respond and present evidence and argument on all issues involved”; General Statutes §4-177(e); and to “conduct cross-examinations required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-178(4) — 1 case
Connecticut Nat. Gas Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Control Auth., 439 A.2d 282 (Conn. 1981).
“Under those requirements the PUCA shall afford all parties an opportunity “to respond and present evidence and argument on all issues involved”; General Statutes §4-177(e); and to “conduct cross-examinations required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.”
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.