Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Citation
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Parent Document
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2013-06-25
Other Sections in This Document (19)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013)
Full Text
1,132 charsWe first set forth the standard of review and general legal principles applicable to our disposition of this appeal. “A notice to quit is a condition precedent to a summary process action and, if defective, deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Bristol v. Ocean State Job Lot Stores of Connecticut, Inc., 284 Conn. 1, 5, 931 A.2d 837 (2007). As our Supreme Court has recognized, “because [a] determination regarding a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. “Furthermore, [s]ummary process is a special statutory procedure designed to provide an expeditious remedy. ... It enable [s] landlords to obtain possession of leased premises without suffering the delay, loss and expense to which, under the common-law actions, they might be subjected by tenants wrongfully holding over their terms. . . . Summary process statutes secure a prompt hearing and final determination. . . . Therefore, the statutes relating to summary process *640must be narrowly construed and strictly followed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 5-6.