Godbout v. Attanasio
Citations
- 199 Conn. App. 88
Syllabus
The plaintiff sought to recover monetary relief pursuant to statute (§ 12- 170) for the alleged misconduct of the defendants, members of the town board of assessment appeals related to his motor vehicle tax assessment appeal. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action on the grounds that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and had failed to allege that the defendants had engaged in some unlawful act or the omission of a necessary act, allegations that were required to support an action pursuant to § 12-170. The court granted the motion to dismiss on both grounds, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court improperly held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's action because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC): there was nothing in the record before this court from which to conclude that the legislature intended that a plaintiff seeking to recover under § 12-170 must first exhaust any and all administrative remedies; § 12-170 does not contain an exhaustion requirement and nothing in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) statutory scheme mandates that any and all issues involving the FOIA must always be raised to and resolved by the FOIC before an action is brought in the Superior Court; moreover, there is no statute that confers any authority on the FOIC to impose monetary penalties on board members and, thus, it would have been futile for the plaintiff to have filed an administrative appeal because the FOIC lacked the ability to provide the plaintiff with the relief requested. 2. This court declined to consider the plaintiff's claim that a motion to dismiss was not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the legal sufficiency of his complaint, the plaintiff having waived any objection to the defendants' use of a motion to dismiss b
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- policy can reasonably be interpreted as defining presence of communicable disease as physical loss or damage
- policy can reasonably be interpreted as defining presence of communicable disease as physical loss or damage
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Alvord; Prescott; Bright
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- OneWest Bank, N.A. v. CeslikConnecticut Appellate Court· 2021-02-02· cited 2×
- Black v. West HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court· 2021-07-13· cited 1×
- Mention v. Kensington Square ApartmentsConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-08-30· cited 1×
- O'Donnell v. Axa Equitable Life Ins. Co.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2022-02-15
- Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2024-04-02
- Jackson v. PrinceConnecticut Appellate Court· 2025-03-25
- Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court· 2025-12-16
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Gurliacci v. MayerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-05-07· cited 1,138×
- Faulkner v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-04-22· cited 812×
- Parsons v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-09-02· cited 482×
- Cummings v. TrippSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-06-09· cited 225×
- City of Waterbury v. Town of WashingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-07-02· cited 132×
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. AlvesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-03-04· cited 110×
- Hunt v. PriorSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-03-26· cited 106×
- Conboy v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-07-21· cited 100×
- Larobina v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-07-12· cited 87×
- Neiman v. Yale UniversitySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-07-20· cited 65×
- Rivers v. City of New BritainSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-07-22· cited 49×
- Sharkey v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-05-14· cited 44×
- State Ex Rel. Golembeske v. WhiteSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1975-04-08· cited 42×
- Egri v. FoisieConnecticut Appellate Court· 2004-06-08· cited 36×
- Stepney, LLC v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-05-20· cited 29×
- Bailey v. Medical Examining Board for State Employee Disability RetirementConnecticut Appellate Court· 2003-02-25· cited 19×
- American Progressive Life & Health Insurance Co. of New York v. Better Benefits, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-06-09· cited 15×
- Levine v. Town of SterlingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-04-12· cited 15×
- Streifel v. BulkleyConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-01-14· cited 9×
- Kraus v. KleeConnecticut Appellate Court· 1968-03-08· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.