State Library v. Freedom of Information Com'n
Decision Date | 13 May 1997 |
Docket Number | Nos. 15522,15523,s. 15522 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE LIBRARY v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al. CITY OF NORWICH et al. v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al. |
Linsley J. Barbato, Assistant Attorney General, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, and Ralph E. Urban and Bernard F. McGovern, Assistant Attorneys General, for the appellant in Docket No. 15522 (plaintiff state library).
Marc S. Mandell, Providence, for the appellants in Docket No. 15523 ( ).
Victor R. Perpetua, Appellate Attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Mitchell W. Pearlman, Commission Counsel, for the appellee in both cases (named defendant).
Jane Richardson, Basile, with whom, on the brief, was James C. Mcguire, New London, for the appellees in both cases (defendant Maria T. Hileman et al.).
Before BORDEN, NORCOTT, PALMER, McDONALD and PETERS, JJ.
Both under the general provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act; General Statutes § 4-183(a); 1 and the specific provisions of the Freedom of Information Act; General Statutes § 1-21i(d); 2 only a person aggrieved by a final decision of the defendant freedom of information commission (commission) may appeal from that decision to the trial court. The sole issue in these consolidated appeals is whether the plaintiffs, the Connecticut state library (state library), the city of Norwich, Richard Abele and James McGeowan, have proven that they were each aggrieved by a decision of the commission ordering the release of certain documents to the defendant Maria T. Hileman, a reporter employed by the defendant Day Publishing Company, the publisher of a New London area newspaper. 3 The trial court, Hurley, J., found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated their aggrievement and sustained their appeals. The defendants appealed 4 to the Appellate Court, which concluded that the trial court should have dismissed the plaintiffs' appeals on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their aggrievement. State Library v. Freedom of Information Commission, 41 Conn.App. 641, 648, 677 A.2d 470 (1996). Having granted, in identical terms, the plaintiffs' petitions for certification, 5 we now reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The relevant facts are described in the opinion of the Appellate Court. "On September 30, 1964, the Norwich city council voted to establish a special five member committee from among the members of the council. The committee was authorized to investigate the official conduct of the Norwich police department and the officers and members thereof, pursuant to the Norwich city charter. The committee was established in response to allegations that complaints of misconduct by members of the police department had been reported to the chief of police and that no action had been taken by the chief to resolve the complaints.
State Library v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 41 Conn.App. at 643-46, 677 A.2d 470.
Concluding that the trial court's finding of aggrievement was improper, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgments. The Appellate Court reviewed the established case law that makes a showing of aggrievement a jurisdictional prerequisite to an administrative appeal. Id., at 646-48, 677 A.2d 470. It then examined the record and the proceedings before the trial court with respect to the plaintiffs' proof of aggrievement in these appeals. It observed that the trial court had Id., at 648, 677 A.2d 470. The Appellate Court held that "a party may not properly rely on the administrative record to establish the fact of aggrievement, but instead, that party has the burden of proving aggrievement in the trial court." Id. Because, in the view of the Appellate Court, the trial court had before it no competent evidence upon which to base a finding that the plaintiffs were aggrieved, the Appellate Court determined that "the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear" the plaintiffs' claims. Id.
Without disputing that the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on aggrievement, the plaintiffs nevertheless seek reversal of the judgment of the Appellate Court on two grounds, one procedural and one substantive. As a matter of procedure, they claim that, if the necessary facts can be found upon examination of the administrative record, the pleadings and the briefs of the parties, then aggrievement may be proven without an evidentiary hearing by the trial court. As a matter of substance, they claim that the record in these appeals supports the trial court's finding of aggrievement. We agree with both of the plaintiffs' claims.
For guidance regarding the procedural requirements for a showing of aggrievement in an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Freedom of Info. Officer v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n
...the department, as the holder of the records at issue, has standing to assert this exemption. See State Library v. Freedom of Information Commission, 240 Conn. 824, 834, 694 A.2d 1235 (1997) (agency subject to commission's order is aggrieved because noncompliance could result in civil and c......
-
Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co.
... ... State v. Bitting, 162 Conn. 1, 11, 291 A.2d 240 (1971); E.M ... We do not know this information because, despite its responsibility to secure an adequate ... ...
-
Mayer v. Historic Dist. Comm'n of Groton
...The court further rejected the plaintiffs' reliance on the administrative record pursuant to State Library v. Freedom of Information Commission , 240 Conn. 824, 832–33, 694 A.2d 1235 (1997), noting the plaintiffs' failure to cite specific references to the administrative record during their......
-
Giulietti v. Giulietti
...of the claim that the plaintiffs' causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations. See State Library v. Freedom of Information Commission, 240 Conn. 824, 833, 694 A.2d 1235 (1997). Our departure from our ordinary procedure is limited to the facts of this 23. James testified as to......