Legal Opinion
Russo v. Common Council
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided November 4, 2003No. AC 23380PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FLYNN, J.
The plaintiff, Vincent Russo, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his application for a writ of mandamus against the defendants, the common council and the mayor of the city of Middletown, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to mootness. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly denied his request for relief because although his claim is con-cededly moot, it falls under the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine, and, therefore, his claim is justiciable. In support of this claim, the plaintiff argues that…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Loisel v. RoweSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Stamford Hospital v. VegaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Waterbury Hospital v. Connecticut Health Care AssociatesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Tomasso Bros. v. October Twenty-Four, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Hennessey v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Sewer CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- CT Freedom Alliance, LLC v. Dept. of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2023
- Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority v. Emcor Group, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- In re Emma F.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2015