Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2002

Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Department of Public Utility Control

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided April 30, 2002

260 Conn. 180; 799 A.2d 294; 2002 Conn. LEXIS 153

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Walenski v. Connecticut State Employees Retirement Commission (Conn. App. Ct. 2018)
Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Glastonbury (Conn. App. Ct. 2011)
Peruta v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Conn. App. Ct. 2011)
Ellis v. Allied Snow Plowing, Removal & Sanding Services Corp. (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)
Del Core v. Mohican Historic Housing Associates (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)
Town of East Hampton v. Department of Public Health (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)
Town of East Hampton v. Dph, No. Cv 02-0514859 S (Jul. 3, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Southeastern Connecticut Water v. Dph, No. Cv 02-0514127 S (Jul. 3, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
New Haven v. Ct Siting Council, No. Cv 02-0513195 S (Aug. 21, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Southern New England Telephone Company, appeals, following our grant of certification to appeal, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s administrative appeal for lack of a final decision by the defendant, the department of public utility control. Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Dept of Public Utility Control, 64 Conn. App. 134, 779 A.2d 817 (2001). We granted the plaintiffs petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs administrative appeal?” Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 258 Conn. 922, 782 A.2d 1252 (2001).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.