Photo of

Welcome to our Supreme and Appellate Court summaries webpage.  On this page, I provide abbreviated summaries of decisions from the Connecticut appellate courts which highlight important issues and developments in Connecticut law, and provide practical practice pointers to litigants.  I have been summarizing these court decisions internally for our firm for more than 10 years, and providing relevant highlights to my municipal and insurance practice clients for almost as long.  It was suggested that a wider audience might appreciate brief summaries of recent rulings that condense often long and confusing decisions down to their basic elements.  These summaries are limited to the civil litigation decisions based on my own particular field of practice, so you will not find distillations of the many criminal and matrimonial law decisions on this page.  I may from time to time add commentary, and may even criticize a decision’s reasoning. Such commentary is solely my opinion . . . and when mistakes of trial counsel are highlighted because they triggered a particular outcome, I will try to be mindful of the adage . . . “There but for the grace of God . . ..”  I hope the reader finds these summaries helpful. – Edward P. McCreery

Posted June 13, 2014

  • SC19009 - Connecticut Independent Utility Workers, Local 12924 v. Dept. of Public Utility Control

Employee's union appealed the DPUC’s approval of gas company’s work force reduction and in the appeal also claimed that the DPUC should have granted it full “party” status to participate, rather than the agency created status of “participant” which was used without the adoption of any regulations of what that meant as requested by the union.  The trial court agreed, but the Supreme Court reversed and sided with the DPUC that the union lacked standing to pursue its appeal as it was not aggrieved by the agency’s decision.  This was because the appeal complaint failed to set forth any facts to show the union represented the workers who would be laid off or that its members were impacted any more than the general public, who likewise could have been afforded “participant status.”  The bold assertions of aggrievement of its membership was not enough.  Facts must be pled to show aggrievement which in turn must be proven.  Denial of the union’s petition to the DPUC to adopt regulations alone is not enough to establish aggrievement.  While anyone can request regulations be adopted, not everyone can appeal the refusal of an agency to do so.  One must be personally aggrieved.

 

The facts and holdings of any case may be redacted, paraphrased or condensed for ease of reading.  No summary can be an exact rendering of any decision, however, so interested readers are referred to the full decisions.  The docket number of each case is a hyperlink to the Connecticut Judicial Department online slip opinion.  ©2014 Pullman & Comley, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Back to Top