Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Citation
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Parent Document
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1999-07-20
Other Sections in This Document (52)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Bittle v. Commissioner of Social Services, 249 Conn. 503 (1999)
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
- Section 4-183
Full Text
1,637 charsMoreover, the legislative intent in extending the period to effectuate service to forty-five days was to provide “certainty in terms of appeal dates, making the dates for appeals uniform throughout law.” 31 S. Proc., supra, p. 2481, remarks of Senator Maloney. The department’s proposed application of § 4-183 (c) (1) would undermine certainty and uniformity in appeals from administrative decisions. If the date of receipt of appeal documents were to be the date of perfection of service, *520then appellants could not be certain when the right to make service would terminate, and thus could not effectively plan to preserve their right to appeal. We have held that failing to make proper service on the agency in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions is a jurisdictional defect subjecting the appeal to dismissal. See Tolly v. Dept. of Human Resources, supra, 225 Conn. 27. Certainty as to the exact legal date for perfecting service is, therefore, crucial. If the date that the service is perfected is set as the date appeal papers are received by the appropriate agency, an appellant’s legal rights would be at the mercy of happenstance against which the appellant has no practical defense, except for an educated guess. We are hesitant to leave the public’s right to have their claims addressed by the court, as statutorily allowed, to guesswork. Additionally, the actual period of time for every appellant will be different because, in any given case, appeal papers may take three or four days, or even longer, to be delivered by mail, thus undermining uniformity in the applicability of the statute to all appellants.