Section 52-196a

Citation: Section 52-196a
Parent Document: Robinson v. V. D. (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-11-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10282961/robinson-v-v-d/ ↗

Full Text

2,345 chars

Const., amend. I. Second, they argue that the statute
          violates the separation of legislative and judicial powers
          as set forth in article second and article fifth, § 1, of
          the constitution of Connecticut. We conclude that both
          arguments lack merit.
             ‘‘The constitutionality of a statute presents a question
          of law . . . over which our review is plenary. . . .
          While the courts may declare a statute to be unconstitu-
          tional, our power to do this should be exercised with
          caution, and in no doubtful case.’’ (Citations omitted;
          internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bonilla, 131
          Conn. App. 388, 392, 28 A.3d 1005 (2011). Our Supreme
          Court has stated that, ‘‘[i]n our assessment of whether
          [a] statute passes constitutional muster, we proceed
          from the well recognized jurisprudential principle that
          [t]he party attacking a validly enacted statute . . .
          bears the heavy burden of proving its unconstitutional-
          ity beyond a reasonable doubt and we indulge in every
          presumption in favor of the statute’s constitutionality.’’
          (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jason B.,
          248 Conn. 543, 556, 729 A.2d 760, cert. denied, 528 U.S.
          967, 120 S. Ct. 406, 145 L. Ed. 2d 316 (1999). ‘‘Where a
          statute is challenged as being unconstitutional on its
          face, the burden is especially heavy.’’ State v. Ryan, 48
          Conn. App. 148, 154, 709 A.2d 21, cert. denied 244 Conn.
          930, 711 A.2d 729, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 876, 119 S. Ct.
          179, 142 L. Ed. 2d 146 (1998). With these principles in
          mind, we address the plaintiffs’ arguments in turn.
                                       A
             The plaintiffs first argue that § 52-196a is unconstitu-
          tional, both facially and as applied, because it requires
          the court to make factual findings and, thus, deprives
          them of their federal and state constitutional rights to
          a jury trial and to petition for grievances. We conclude
          that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       Page 29

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text