Legal Opinion
Tarnopol v. Connecticut Siting Council
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 18, 1989No. 13656PublishedCited by 51 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCallahan, J.
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in granting the motions of the defendants, Metro Mobile CTS of Fairfield County, Inc. (Metro Mobile), and the Connecticut siting council (council), to *159dismiss the plaintiffs’ administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the plaintiffs failed to comply with the service requirements of General Statutes § 4-183 (b)1 of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ appeal and, therefore, did not err in granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
On…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Chestnut Realty, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights & OpportunitiesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Basilicato v. Department of Public Utility ControlSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Farricielli v. Connecticut Personnel Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Andrew Ansaldi Co. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Hyde v. RichardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- LeConche v. ElligersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Hatt v. Burlington Coat FactorySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Tolly v. Department of Human ResourcesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Union Bay Preservation Coalition v. Cosmos Development & Administration Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1995
- Union Bay Pres. Coal. v. COSMOS DEVELOP.Washington Supreme Court · 1995
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.