Section 4-61dd

Citation: Section 4-61dd
Parent Document: Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada, 349 Conn. 223 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131752/dept-of-public-health-v-estrada/ ↗

Full Text

2,398 chars

the action. . . . It is well established that, in determin-
         ing whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction,
         every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be
         indulged.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal
         quotation marks omitted.) Amodio v. Amodio, 247
         Conn. 724, 727–28, 724 A.2d 1084 (1999); see, e.g., Per-
         eira v. State Board of Education, 304 Conn. 1, 43 n.30,
         37 A.3d 625 (2012).
            It is equally well established that ‘‘[t]he sovereign
         immunity enjoyed by the state is not absolute.’’ (Internal
         quotation marks omitted.) Columbia Air Services, Inc.
         v. Dept. of Transportation, 293 Conn. 342, 349, 977 A.2d
         636 (2009). There are three exceptions to sovereign
         immunity; relevant to this appeal is the first, which
         applies ‘‘when the legislature, either expressly or by
         force of a necessary implication, statutorily waives the
         state’s sovereign immunity . . . . For a claim made
         pursuant to [this] exception, this court has recognized
         the well established principle that statutes in derogation
         of sovereign immunity should be strictly construed.
         . . . [When] there is any doubt about their meaning or
         intent they are given the effect which makes the least
         rather than the most change in sovereign immunity.
         . . . In the absence of a proper factual basis in the
         complaint to support the applicability of these excep-
         tions, the granting of a motion to dismiss on sovereign
         immunity grounds is proper.’’ (Citations omitted; inter-
         nal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 349–50.
            On appeal, the department contends that § 4-61dd (e)
         waives sovereign immunity, and the meaning of that
         waiver necessarily implicates sovereign immunity, not
         an election of remedies issue. According to the depart-
         ment, the ‘‘alternative’’ mechanisms in § 4-61dd (e) are
         mutually exclusive, and, therefore, the commission lacked
         subject matter jurisdiction because § 4-61dd (e) does
         not waive sovereign immunity with respect to duplica-
         tive claims. In this case, the department contends that,
Page 18                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       June 11, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text