# Drumm v. Brown

> Supreme Court of Connecticut · July 28, 1998 · 245 Conn. 657

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7845613

## Case

- **Full name:** JOHN C. DRUMM v. G. MICHAEL BROWN
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Connecticut
- **Decided:** July 28, 1998
- **Citations:** 245 Conn. 657; 716 A.2d 50; 1998 Conn. LEXIS 267
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Berdon
- **Judges:** Berdon, Borden, McDonald
- **Cited by:** 48 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7845613

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that even if the Supreme Court’s precedents establish “only a federal court procedural rule,” that court may look to similar policies in (continued . . .
- concluding that the concerns "upon which the doctrine is based [are] most pressing when a parallel proceeding is pending in the tribal court"
- finding that exhaustion of tribal remedies doctrine is not jurisdictional, and, therefore, does not mandate dismissal
- concluding that "exhaustion is not required" under LaPlante "in the absence of a pending action in the tribal court"

## Opinion text

BERDON, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with the majority that the trial court incorrectly dismissed the action brought by the three plaintiffs, John C. Drumm, Richard Perron and Gerald O. Maranda, on the ground that they failed to “exhaust tribal remedies.” I, like Justice McDonald, disagree that this action with respect to Drumm and Perron should be stayed. They obviously filed their complaint with the tribal court only to protect themselves after the trial court wrongfully dismissed this action. Under those circumstances, fairness would dictate that if Drumm and Per-ron withdraw their complaint before the tribal court they be allowed to prosecute this complaint.
Accordingly, I dissent in part.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7845613. Public record. Not legal advice.