noting that “the federal rales [of civil procedure] are carefully-crafted instruments designed to achieve, by their uniform application, fairness ... in the conduct of federal litigation”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “the federal rales [of civil procedure] are carefully-crafted instruments designed to achieve, by their uniform application, fairness ... in the conduct of federal litigation”
- given that trial court had equitable jurisdiction pursuant to General Statutes § 52-1, it did not need to consider aggrievement for pur- poses of administrative appeal before granting applica- tion for stay and restraining order
- “[t]he Superior Court’s exercise of its equitable powers in [deciding whether to grant a stay] is in fact much broader” than that expressly conveyed by statute
- "whenever a lack of jurisdiction to entertain a particular proceeding comes CT Page 3495 to a court's notice, the court can dismiss the proceeding upon its own motion"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Callahan, J.,
dissenting. I agree with Judge Bieluch’s dissenting opinion in Park City Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care, 14 Conn. App. 413, 420-25 , 542 A.2d 326 (1988). The hearing on the plaintiff’s application for a stay of the commission’s action was neither the time nor the place to determine definitively the question of aggrievement. Aggrievement could and should have been considered by the trial court when balancing the equities to determine whether it would grant the plaintiff’s application for a stay. It was, however, procedurally incorrect and fundamentally unfair to dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal for failure to prove aggrievement at this stage of the proceedings.