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

2,486 chars

way that all acts of the nature of the functions of one
          department can never be exercised by another depart-
          ment; such a division is impracticable, and if carried
          out would result in the paralysis of government. . . .
             ‘‘In challenges to a statute’s constitutionality on the
          ground that it impermissibly infringes on the judicial
          authority in violation of separation of powers princi-
          ples, [a] statute will be held unconstitutional on [separa-
          tion of powers] grounds [only] if: (1) it governs subject
          matter that not only falls within the judicial power, but
          also lies exclusively within judicial control; or (2) it
          significantly interferes with the orderly functioning of
          the Superior Court’s judicial role.’’ (Citations omitted;
          internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McCleese,
          333 Conn. 378, 415, 215 A.3d 1154 (2019).
             Contrary to the assertions of the plaintiffs, they have
          failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that either
          prong of the aforementioned test is implicated by § 52-
          196a. Although the plaintiffs would have us view § 52-
          196a as usurping the role of the Superior Court to set
          rules of practice governing court procedures and the
          manner in which litigation is conducted by state courts,
          this argument is a bridge too far. Rather than merely
          mandating court procedures, the anti-SLAPP statute
          creates a substantive statutory right to be free from
          litigation, the purpose of which is to punish or intimi-
          date citizens who exercise their rights to free speech
          and/or to petition the government. The creation of such
          rights is certainly within the powers and province of
          the legislative branch. ‘‘[W]here public policy, as per-
          ceived by the legislature, requires a simple and prompt
          proceeding in order to implement parties’ rights, the
          legislature is not prohibited by the constitution from
          creating a statutory proceeding which provides for that
          simplicity and promptness, and which, in order to insure
          simplicity and promptness, enacts as part and parcel
          of the statutory proceeding certain minimal procedural
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 33

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text