402 A.2d 1197 (Conn.Super. 1979), 225196, McCarthy v. Freedom of Information Commission

Docket Nº225196.
Citation402 A.2d 1197, 35 Conn.Supp. 186
Opinion JudgeBIELUCH, Judge.
Party NamePatricia McCARTHY et al. v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al.
AttorneyKopkind, Flynn & Raccio, New Haven, for named plaintiff and plaintiffs Wayne Monty and Glenn Davis. Myron B. Bell, New London, for defendants the city of New London and C. Francis Driscoll. Day, Berry & Howard, Hartford, for defendants the Hartford Courant and Michael Whalen. Mitchell W. Pearlman...
Judge PanelBIELUCH,
Case DateJanuary 29, 1979
CourtSuperior Court of Connecticut

Page 1197

402 A.2d 1197 (Conn.Super. 1979)

35 Conn.Supp. 186

Patricia McCARTHY et al.

v.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al.

No. 225196.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain, at Hartford.

January 29, 1979

Page 1198

[35 Conn.Supp. 187] Kopkind, Flynn & Raccio, New Haven, for named plaintiff and plaintiffs Wayne Monty and Glenn Davis.

Myron B. Bell, New London, for defendants the city of New London and C. Francis Driscoll.

Day, Berry & Howard, Hartford, for defendants the Hartford Courant and Michael Whalen.

Mitchell W. Pearlman, Hartford, for named defendant.

BIELUCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of the freedom of information commission (hereinafter the commission). On October 25, 1978, the commission ordered the city of New London to release to the Hartford Courant certain records pertaining to complaints against New London police officers and to disciplinary action taken thereon. The plaintiffs herein, present and former police officers, moved to stay the commission's order. The court, after a hearing on the motion, rendered a temporary order staying the release of the requested information relating to the plaintiffs only, reserving its final determination until this time.

Any "party" who is aggrieved by the commission's decision may appeal in accordance with General Statutes § 4-183. General Statutes § 1-21i(d). The application for a stay of the commission's decision is authorized by § 4-183(c) of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act. Section 4-183(c) does not indicate the criteria to be used by the court in determining when a stay should be ordered. The federal courts consider the factors first enumerated in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Federal Power Commission, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 106, 110, 259 F.2d 921, 925, in [35 Conn.Supp. 188] ruling on a motion to stay an administrative order pending judicial review. Under those criteria a petitioner is required to show: (1) that there is a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the appeal; (2) that there is a probability of irreparable injury without such relief; (3) that no other parties of

Page 1199

interest in the proceedings would be substantially harmed by the granting of a stay; and (4) that the public interest in the administrative ruling would not be prejudiced by a stay. See also Hamlin Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission, 337 F.2d 221, 222-23 (6th Cir.).

There are only two reported Connecticut cases on this issue, and both were decided in the former Court of Common Pleas. In Waterbury Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care, 30 Conn.Sup. 352, 316 A.2d 787, the court (pp. 354-55, 316 A.2d 787) expressly adopted the above four-point federal test. Applying those criteria to the facts Before it, the court denied the plaintiff's application for a stay of the administrative order directing the refund of rate increases collected prior to their approval by the defendant commission. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • 481 A.2d 68 (Conn.App. 1984), 2404, Pascal v. Pascal
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • August 28, 1984
    ...[2 Conn.App. 485] is a personal right of the accused only." McCarthy v. Freedom of Information Commission, 35 Conn.Sup. 186, 193, 402 A.2d 1197 (1979). The trial court, in denying the defendant's motion for erasure, relied on the confidentiality afforded by General Statutes § 46b-11. T......
  • 493 A.2d 229 (Conn. 1985), Griffin Hosp. v. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 11, 1985
    ...suggested in 2 Cooper, State Administrative Law, p. 629. See McCarthy v. Freedom of Information Commission, 35 Conn.Sup. 186, 188-89, 402 A.2d 1197 (1979). The state argues for a more demanding test in granting a stay, such as that developed by the federal courts in appeals arising under th......
  • 409 A.2d 150 (Conn.Super. 1980), State v. Anonymous
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court of Connecticut
    • Invalid date
    ...event of acquittal, nolle or absolute pardon of criminal charges. McCarthy v. Freedom of Information Commission, 35 Conn.Sup. 186, 193, 402 A.2d 1197. Such court records include transcripts of criminal proceedings. Lechner v. Holmberg, 165 Conn. 152, 160, 328 A.2d 701. In Lechner a person a......
3 cases
  • 481 A.2d 68 (Conn.App. 1984), 2404, Pascal v. Pascal
    • United States
    • Connecticut Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • August 28, 1984
    ...[2 Conn.App. 485] is a personal right of the accused only." McCarthy v. Freedom of Information Commission, 35 Conn.Sup. 186, 193, 402 A.2d 1197 (1979). The trial court, in denying the defendant's motion for erasure, relied on the confidentiality afforded by General Statutes § 46b-11. T......
  • 493 A.2d 229 (Conn. 1985), Griffin Hosp. v. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 11, 1985
    ...suggested in 2 Cooper, State Administrative Law, p. 629. See McCarthy v. Freedom of Information Commission, 35 Conn.Sup. 186, 188-89, 402 A.2d 1197 (1979). The state argues for a more demanding test in granting a stay, such as that developed by the federal courts in appeals arising under th......
  • 409 A.2d 150 (Conn.Super. 1980), State v. Anonymous
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court of Connecticut
    • Invalid date
    ...event of acquittal, nolle or absolute pardon of criminal charges. McCarthy v. Freedom of Information Commission, 35 Conn.Sup. 186, 193, 402 A.2d 1197. Such court records include transcripts of criminal proceedings. Lechner v. Holmberg, 165 Conn. 152, 160, 328 A.2d 701. In Lechner a person a......