Priore v. Haig
Citations
- 344 Conn. 636
Syllabus
Pursuant to the common law of this state, communications made in the course of and in furtherance of administrative proceedings that are quasi-judicial in nature are absolutely privileged. Pursuant further to Kelley v. Bonney (221 Conn. 549), in determining whether an administrative proceeding is quasi-judicial in nature, a court may consider whether the body or entity conducting the proceeding has the discretion to apply the law to the facts and the authority (1) to exercise judgment and discretion, (2) to hear and determine or to ascertain facts and decide, (3) to make binding orders and judgments, (4) to affect the personal or property rights of private persons, (5) to examine witnesses and to hear the litigation of the issues, and (6) to enforce decisions or to impose penalties. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for, inter alia, defamation in connec- tion with statements that the defendant had made about the plaintiff at a public hearing before a town planning and zoning commission in connection with the plaintiff's application for a special permit to con- struct a new house and to install a new sewer line on his property. At the hearing, the defendant expressed her concerns regarding the plaintiff's application, stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff had not been trustworthy in prior dealings involving his application, that he had ''a serious criminal past,'' and that he had paid more than $40 million in fines to the federal agency charged with enforcing federal securities 344 Conn. 636 SEPTEMBER, 2022 637 Priore v. Haig laws. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that her statements were entitled to absolute immunity. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that her statements were entitled to absolute immu- nity because the proceeding before the commission was quasi-judicial in nature and the defendant's statements were pertinent to the proceeding. Accordingly
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Khan v. Yale UniversitySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-06-27· cited 19×
- Deutsche Bank AG v. VikSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-05-28· cited 12×
- Salce v. CardelloSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-09-26· cited 3×
- Khan v. Jewish Women InternationalConnecticut Appellate Court· 2026-06-30
- Ancona v. EllerConnecticut Appellate Court· 2026-06-30
Cites
36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Paul v. DavisSupreme Court· 1976-05-19· cited 4,836×
- Briscoe v. LaHueSupreme Court· 1983-03-07· cited 2,053×
- Petyan v. EllisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-06-17· cited 552×
- DeLaurentis v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-08-20· cited 503×
- Erickson v. Marsh & McLennan Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1990-02-05· cited 234×
- Kelley v. BonneySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-04-07· cited 204×
- A.P. & W. Holding Corp. v. Planning & Zoning BoardSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1974-08-27· cited 184×
- Irwin v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-04-28· cited 135×
- Hunt v. PriorSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-03-26· cited 106×
- Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc.Washington Supreme Court· 1989-07-20· cited 83×
- Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-02-15· cited 82×
- Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Donald L. Dotson v. Rosemary Trump Service Employees International Union Local 585Third Circuit· 1999-07-08· cited 75×
- Planning & Zoning Commission v. GilbertSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-08-23· cited 75×
- Rioux v. BarrySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-07-31· cited 71×
- Hopkins v. O'CONNORSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-07-03· cited 70×
- Craig v. Stafford Construction, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-09-14· cited 70×
- Arlington Heights National Bank v. Arlington Heights Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nIllinois Supreme Court· 1967-05-18· cited 61×
- In Re: Ibp Confidential Business Documents Litigation. Hughes A. Bagley v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.Eighth Circuit· 1985-02-13· cited 48×
- Office of the Governor v. Select Committee of InquirySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-06-18· cited 46×
- Burns v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1999-08-10· cited 45×
Other cases named Priore v. Haig
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
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.