Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)

Citation: Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Parent Document: Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131855/michel-v-hartford/ ↗

Full Text

1,153 chars

the purpose of restricting the operative effect of statu-
          tory language to less than what its scope of operation
          would be otherwise. . . . Exceptions, like provisos,
          operate to restrict the general applicability of legislative
          language. Ordinarily a proviso occurs within the body
          of a section while an exception is drafted as a separate
          section. . . . [W]e have long held that provisos and
          exceptions to statutes are to be [strictly] construed with
          doubts resolved in favor of the general rule rather than
          the exception and that those who claim the benefit of
          an exception under a statute have the burden of proving
          that they come within the limited class for whose bene-
          fit it was established.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis
          altered; internal quotation marks omitted.) Matthews
          v. Dept. of Public Safety, supra, 267–68; see Yale Univer-
          sity v. New Haven, 71 Conn. 316, 337, 42 A. 87 (1899)
          (stating that proviso is strictly construed and it must
          be established by its proponent).

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text