Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kudlacz v. Lindberg Heat Treating Co.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided June 9, 1998No. AC 17337Published

1DissentSpear, J.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that dismissal is required here because of our prior holdings with respect to when the ten day appeal period set forth in General Statutes § 31-3011 begins to run. Basic principles of due process compel a reversal of the board’s decision because the board found as a fact that the plaintiff did not receive notice of the commissioner’s decision until after the ten day appeal period had expired.2 The majority makes no mention of this critical finding that distinguishes the present case from those on which the majority relies.

I first address…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  2. State v. EvansSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
  3. Dohany v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  4. In re Baby Girl B.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  5. Hall v. Gilbert & Bennett Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API