Carney v. Pilch
Decision Date | 06 March 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 106253,106253 |
Citation | 296 A.2d 687,30 Conn.Supp. 34 |
Parties | John J. CARNEY et al. v. Francis J. PILCH et al. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Common Pleas |
Hubert J. Santos, Enfield, for plaintiffs.
Kevin B. Kenny, Hartford, for defendants.
The plaintiffs, enrolled members of the Democratic party in the town of Enfield seek to enjoin the defendants from doing any act relative to the selection of members of the town committee pursuant to rules promulgated by the Democratic party of the town of Enfield.
The defendants have filed a plea in abatement, alleging several grounds, chief of which is the failure of the plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies. The defendants introduced into evidence a copy of the rules of the Democratic party of the state of Connecticut. General Statutes § 9-374 is the authority for the filing of rules by both state and local parties. The plaintiffs have denied the allegations of the defendants' plea in abatement.
Actions against the Democratic state central committee are distinguishable. The instant case has been instituted by enrolled members of the Democratic party of the town of Enfield against officials of the local Democratic party of the town of Enfield relative to the party rules concerning the procedure for the selection of party-endorsed candidates for the office of town committee member.
On October 2, 1971, at a state convention, the Democratic party of the state of Connecticut amended its rules. Articles 6 and 7 provide the basis for rules which bind local parties in the endorsement of candidates for various offices, including that of a town committee member. Pursuant to § 9-398 of the General Statutes, entitled 'Dispute as to endorsement,' the Democratic party of the state of Connecticut adopted article 4, which provides that The plaintiffs claim that the defendants have violated the provisions of General Statutes § 9-390, dealing with selection of party-endorsed candidates, when they adopted the rules for the Democratic party...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee v. Nielsen
...560; Republican Town Committee v. Knowles, 60 R.I. 339, 198 A. 780 (1938); Como v. Sprague, 46 R.I. 235, 126 A. 378; Carney v. Pilch, 30 Conn.Sup. 34, 296 A.2d 687 (1972). Accordingly, in determining whether a particular dispute is a nonjusticiable political matter, the focus has been on wh......
-
State ex rel. Holland v. Moran
...matters regarding internal operation of the party for determination by the proper tribunals of the party itself. Carney v. Pilch, 30 Conn.Supp. 34, 296 A.2d 687, 688 (1972) (emphasis added) (the court held there was not jurisdiction where the parties sought to enjoin selection of party-endo......
-
Cullen v. Auclair
...Town Committee v. Knowles, 60 R.I. 339, 198 A. 780 (1938); Como v. Sprague, 46 R.I. 235, 126 A. 378 [1924]; Carney v. Pilch, 30 Conn.Supp. 34, 296 A.2d 687 (1972). Accordingly, in determining whether a particular dispute is a nonjusticiable political matter, the focus has been on whether th......
-
Book v. Garrett
... ... being non-justiciable. See Alcorn ex rel. Dawson v ... Gleason, 10 Conn.Supp. 210, 216 (1941); Carney v ... Pilch, 30 Conn.Supp. 34, 35, 296 A.2d 687 (1972); ... State v. ex rel. Sturdevant v. Allen, 43 Neb. 651, ... 62 N.W. 35 ... ...