Riley v. Board of Police Com'rs of City of Norwalk
| Decision Date | 07 January 1958 |
| Citation | 145 Conn. 1,137 A.2d 759 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Alfred RILEY v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF NORWALK. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Sidney Vogel, Norwalk, with whom was Robert B. Seidman, Norwalk, for appellant (plaintiff).
Vincent D. Flaherty, Norwalk, for appellee (defendant).
Before WYNNE, C. J., and BALDWIN, DALY, KING and MURPHY, JJ.
After a hearing, the defendant board voted, on January 17, 1956, to demote the plaintiff from the rank of sergeant to that of top-grade patrolman in the Norwalk police department. The plaintiff appealed from the action of the board to the Superior Court. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has appealed to this court from the judgment.
The board was established by a special law enacted by the General Assembly in 1935. 22 Spec.Laws, p. 291, No. 455. Sections 1 and 2 of the act provide:
Section 7742 of the General Statutes 1 was first enacted in 1941 in the language now appearing in it, except for the last sentence, which provided: 'So much of any public or private acts inconsistent herewith is repealed.' Sup.1941, § 810f. The trial court determined that under the provisions of § 7742 the Court of Common Pleas has exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal from the defendant board and that the appeal to the Superior Court should be erased. The plaintiff claims that the board is not a municipal commission; that the Superior Court, not the Court of Common Pleas, has jurisdiction of his appeal from the action of the board; and that the court erred in concluding otherwise. This contention is based upon his assertion that the board, created by the special act, is not an agency of the municipality but a public body over whom the city has no control and for whose conduct it is not responsible. He claims, also, that 'the repugnancy' between § 7742 and the special act is not sufficiently clear to warrant the determination by the court that the general statute, which specifically provides that '[s]o much of any private act as is inconsistent herewith is repealed,' repealed the special act.
In Daley v. Board of Police Commissioners, 133 Conn. 716, 54 A.2d 501, the plaintiff, a patrolman in the East Hartford police department, had appealed on September 18, 1946, to the Superior Court from an order of the board of police commissioners of East Hartford discharging him. That board had been established by a special law enacted by the General Assembly in 1929. 20 Spec.Laws, pp. 1126, 1127. Section 22 of the act provided: Section 23 provided: While the action was pending in the Superior Court, the plaintiff filed a written motion requesting that his appeal be transferred from the Superior Court 'to the Court of Common Pleas, which, under section 810f of the 1941 Supplement to the * * * General Statutes, has exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from municipal boards, officers or commissions.' A-235 Rec. & Briefs, back of p. 151. The appeal was transferred to the Court of Common Pleas by an order of the Superior Court in which it was stated that 'as it appears that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mobley, 6-337571
...of the judicial function was not dicta since the issue had been raised by the defendant in that case. See Riley v. Board of Police Commissioners, 145 Conn. 1, 5, 137 A.2d 759 (1958); Sharkiewicz v. Smith, 142 Conn. 410, 412, 114 A.2d 691 (1955). Nor is the binding effect of Cooley diminishe......
-
Mazzola v. Southern New England Telephone Co.
...is possible in this case. This question must be resolved before we can consider the appeal on the merits. Riley v. Board of Police Commissioners, 145 Conn. 1, 6, 137 A.2d 759, 761. The taking of an appeal from the granting or denial of a temporary injunction is ordinarily impossible, since ......
-
State v. Salmon
...and determined in a case, and not what is said by the court on points not necessarily involved therein." Riley v. Board of Police Commissioners, 145 Conn. 1, 5, 137 A.2d 759 (1958). For example, "[i]n DellaCamera ... this court declared a state statute unconstitutional after it had noted th......
-
Sisters of Holy Cross of Mass. v. Town of Brookline
...intend to assert jurisdiction. Paul Livoli, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Marlborough, Mass., 197 N.E.2d 785, [ a Cf. Riley v. Board of Police Com'rs, 145 Conn. 1, 6, 137 A.2d 759. We distinguish the case of Leventhal v. Buehler, Mass., 191 N.E.2d 128, [ balso cited by Holy Cross, which concerned......