Ajello v. Moffie
| Decision Date | 11 December 1979 |
| Citation | 179 Conn. 324,426 A.2d 295 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 1980-1 Trade Cases P 63,073 In re Application of Carl R. AJELLO, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, v. Harold J. MOFFIE. |
Gerard J. Dowling, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on brief, was Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., for appellant (plaintiff).
Marsha B. Moses, Milford, with whom on brief, was Stephen E. Ronai, Milford, for appellee (defendant).
Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, PETERS and HEALEY, JJ.
In the summer of 1976, the plaintiff, Carl R. Ajello, attorney general, had reasonable cause to believe that the defendant, Harold J. Moffie, the then president of the Connecticut association of Health Care Facilities, Inc., had written a letter to the members of the association urging them to boycott state-supported patients. Thereafter, pursuant to the provisions of § 35-42 of the General Statutes, 1 the attorney general caused to be served upon Harold J. Moffie a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum. 2
Upon being served Moffie informed the attorney general that he would not comply with the subpoena. Pursuant to the provisions of § 35-42(f)(1), the attorney general applied to the Superior Court for an order of compliance with the subpoena. The court denied the application on the ground that the activities sought to be investigated by the attorney general were excepted from the application of the Connecticut Anti-Trust Act.
The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether, on an application for enforcement of a subpoena issued pursuant to § 35-42 of the General Statutes, it is proper for the court to make a determination as to the substantive applicability of the Anti-Trust Act to the facts before it. We conclude that it is not proper.
It is clear that the legislature has given the attorney general subpoena powers to investigate possible violations of the Connecticut Anti-Trust Act and, if warranted, to bring the necessary and proper enforcement proceedings. 3 The purpose of the subpoena is to afford the attorney general a form of pretrial discovery. 4 It allows the attorney general in his investigative role to discover and procure evidence, not to prove a pending charge or complaint. Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 209, 66 S.Ct. 494, 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946).
While courts which enforce such subpoenas may inquire into most questions of legality, they may not inquire into questions concerning the coverage or even the probable coverage of the statute under which the attorney general is acting. See Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, supra, 214, 66 S.Ct. 494; Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brigadoon Scotch Distributing Co., 480 F.2d 1047, 1052 (2d Cir. 1973); New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Brown, 507 F.2d 160, 165 (5th Cir. 1975); Davis, Administrative Law Text § 3.07, p. 65 (3d Ed. 1972).
The record indicates clearly that the activity sought to be investigated by the attorney general related to a suspected boycott of state-funded medicare patients in the nursing homes of the defendant's association. No claim has been made by the defendant that the subpoena was either overbroad, or burdensome, or irrelevant, or privileged; cf. United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 98 S.Ct. 2357, 57 L.Ed.2d 221 (1978); the only defense raised by the defendant was that he fell within an exception to the coverage of the Anti-Trust Act. 5
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings according to law.
1 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo and Trantolo
...which was considered and rejected by the trial court, the commissioner relies on our decision in In re Application of Ajello v. Moffie, 179 Conn. 324, 426 A.2d 295 (1979). In that case, which involved a proceeding initiated by the attorney general to enforce an investigative subpoena based ......
-
Hartford Cty. Sheriffs Dept. v. Blumenthal
...560 (1995); Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, 190 Conn. 510, 461 A.2d 938 (1983); In re Application of Ajello v. Moffie, 179 Conn. 324, 426 A.2d 295 (1979); see also United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 70 S.Ct. 357, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950); Oklahoma Press Publ......
-
Woodbury Knoll, LLC v. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP
...See, e.g., Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & Trantolo, 190 Conn. 510, 461 A.2d 938 (1983); In re Application of Ajello v. Moffie, 179 Conn. 324, 426 A.2d 295 (1979).” As I have explained, however, it is well established that discovery orders do not satisfy the first prong of Cu......
-
Brown Inc. v. Blumenthal
...in his investigative role to discover and procure evidence, not to prove a pending charge or complaint.” In re Application of Ajello v. Moffie, 179 Conn. 324, 326, 426 A.2d 295 (1979). The statute “authorize[s] the attorney general to conduct investigations and seek discovery orders from th......
-
Connecticut. Practice Text
...lawfully issued subpoenas duces tecum to challenge the sufficiency of notice on very technical grounds. Id. at 120. 350. Ajello v. Moffie, 426 A.2d 295 (Conn. 1979). The basis for the claim of exemption is not clear from the decision. 351. Id. at 297; see also S. Tinnerello & Sons v. State,......