Skip to main content
· 9/6/2022

Williams v. Mansfield

Citations

  • 215 Conn. App. 1

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the parking violation assessment issued against him by the hearing officer for the defendant town of Mansfield. After the town had issued the plaintiff a $30 parking ticket, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the town. Following a hearing, the town's hearing officer issued the subject assessment against the plaintiff. The plaintiff then appealed to the Superior Court, pursuant to the applicable statute (§ 7-152b (g)), by filing a petition to reopen the assessment. The court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the appeal was moot as a result of the town's having elected to void the underlying parking ticket. There- after, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an order of mandamus to compel the clerk of the court to tax costs he had incurred by filing and litigating the appeal, concluding that the plaintiff was not the prevail- ing party, and, therefore, he was not entitled to the taxation of costs under the applicable statute (§ 52-257). On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's appeal as moot because it could have granted the plaintiff practical relief by sustaining his appeal and ordering the town's hearing officer to vacate the assessment: although the town voided the parking ticket, the assessment against the plaintiff remained in effect, as the parking ticket, which is an allegation that the plaintiff committed a parking violation, was separate and distinct from the assessment, which is an adjudication of the plaintiff's liability for the alleged violation, and, therefore, the assessment had independent legal significance from the parking ticket; accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with direction to sustain the appeal and to order the town's hearing officer to vacate the assessment. 2. The trial court improperly denied the plaintiff's motion for an order of mandamus to

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “We conclude that because a trade name is not an entity with legal capacity to sue, the corporation has no standing to litigate the merits of the case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bright; Prescott; Elgo

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.