§ 46a-58

Citation: § 46a-58
Parent Document: Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2022-04-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6462677/connecticut-judicial-branch-v-gilbert/ ↗

Full Text

2,491 chars

reviews the trial court’s judgment pursuant to the Uni-
          form Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General
          Statutes § 4-166 et seq. Under the UAPA, it is [not] the
          function . . . of th[e] court to retry the case or to sub-
          stitute its judgment for that of the administrative
          agency. . . . Even for conclusions of law, [t]he court’s
          ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the
          evidence, the [agency] has acted unreasonably, arbi-
          trarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.’’ (Internal
          quotation marks omitted.) Meriden v. Freedom of Infor-
          mation Commission, 191 Conn. App. 648, 654, 216 A.3d
          847 (2019), aff’d, 338 Conn. 310, 258 A.3d 1 (2021).
             ‘‘[T]he primary purpose of a sanction for [a] violation
          of a discovery order is to ensure that the defendant’s
          rights are protected, not to exact punishment on the
          [complainant] for [her] allegedly improper conduct.
          . . . The determinative question for [a reviewing] court
          is not whether it would have imposed a similar sanction
          but whether the [referee] could reasonably conclude
          as [she] did given the facts presented. Never will the
          case on appeal look as it does to a [referee] . . . faced
          with the need to impose reasonable bounds and order
          on discovery.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation
          marks omitted.) Usowski v. Jacobson, 267 Conn. 73, 85,
          836 A.2d 1167 (2003). ‘‘In order for [an] order of sanc-
          tions for violation of a discovery order to withstand
          scrutiny, three requirements must be met. First, the
          order to be complied with must be reasonably clear.
          . . . This requirement poses a legal question that we
          will review de novo. Second, the record must establish
          that the order was in fact violated. This requirement
          poses a question of fact that we will review using a
          clearly erroneous standard of review. Third, the sanc-
          tion imposed must be proportional to the violation. This
          requirement poses a question of the discretion of the
          [presiding officer] that we will review for abuse of that
          discretion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
Page 76                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                             April 26, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text