Hopkins v. Pac
| Decision Date | 12 December 1978 |
| Citation | 176 Conn. 318,407 A.2d 979 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Necia W. HOPKINS v. Stanley J. PAC, Commissioner of Environmental Protection, et al. |
Jerome M. Griner, Hartford, for plaintiff.
Alan M. Kosloff, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on brief, was Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., for defendants.
Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and PETERS, JJ.
The plaintiff instituted this action in the Superior Court seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment determining whether the Indian Affairs Council is an "agency" within the meaning of § 4-166(1) of the General Statutes so that the provisions of chapter 54 of the General Statutes (Uniform Administrative Procedure Act) are applicable to the acts and decisions of that counsel. Pursuant to a stipulation by all parties to the action, the above question has been reserved for the consideration and advice of this court.
The plaintiff claims to be a Schaghticoke Indian within the meaning of §§ 47-59a and 47-66 of the General Statutes. The defendants to the present action are the commissioner of environmental protection and the eight members of the Indian Affairs Council. Although the plaintiff seeks relief from the Superior Court in the form of a declaratory judgment, the parties do not claim, and the record does not reveal, that any attempt was made to notify anyone other than the named defendants of the pending action. Practice Book, 1963, § 309(d), 1 provides that the court will not render declaratory judgments upon the complaint of any person "unless all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint are parties to the action or have reasonable notice thereof." Strict adherence to this rule has consistently been required by this court. Cavalli v. McMahon, 174 Conn. 212, 215-16, 384 A.2d 374; Gannon v. Sanders, 157 Conn. 1, 5, 244 A.2d 397; Wenzel v. Danbury, 152 Conn. 675, 677, 211 A.2d 683.
It is clear that all persons affected by the actions and decisions of the Indian Affairs Council including, but not limited to, all members of the Indian community of Connecticut may have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the present case. Simply stated, "(a)nyone with an interest in the subject matter is entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, whether they support the plaintiffs' or the defendants' position." Cavalli v. McMahon, supra, 174 Conn. 216, 384 A.2d 376.
Consequently, we refuse to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Napoletano v. CIGNA Healthcare of Connecticut, Inc.
...the action or have reasonable notice thereof." This court has consistently required strict adherence to this rule. Hopkins v. Pac, 176 Conn. 318, 319, 407 A.2d 979 (1978). Failure to comply with § 390(d) deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgmen......
-
Batte-Holmgren v. Com'R of Public Health
...238 Conn. 216, 224-25, 680 A.2d 127 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1103, 117 S.Ct. 1106, 137 L.Ed.2d 308 (1997); Hopkins v. Pac, 176 Conn. 318, 319, 407 A.2d 979 (1978). In recent years, however, the court has been willing to remand such cases to allow the defect to be cured, signaling a sh......
-
Tucker v. Maher
...182 Conn. 342, 343, 438 A.2d 102 (1980). This court has consistently required strict adherence to this rule. Hopkins v. Pac, 176 Conn. 318, 319, 407 A.2d 979 (1978); Cavalli v. McMahon, 174 Conn. 212, 215-16, 384 A.2d 374 (1978); Gannon v. Sanders, 157 Conn. 1, 5, 244 A.2d 397 (1968). 'A fa......
-
Hopkins v. Pac
...the parties. In this opinion the other judges concurred. 1 The present case was before the court on a previous occasion, Hopkins v. Pac, 176 Conn. 318, 407 A.2d 979, but the question reserved for our advice was not answered because of the plaintiff's failure to provide reasonable notice of ......