davidmcbeth
Banned
I just got out of a hearing today in fact dealing with timeliness requirements of filing ... with CGS Sec. 1-206(b)(2) that states, in part:
Any party aggrieved by the commission's denial of such leave may apply to the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford, within fifteen days of the commission meeting at which such leave was denied, for an order requiring the commission to hear such appeal.
Hearing today was in respect to a motion to dismiss ... several issues I added onto a pending case (via amended complaint) and that I did not include within 15 days. My argument was that the 15 day time limit was directory and not mandatory (hence not something that could be dismissed for that reason) due to the wording of the sentence that only has "may" in it, which is almost always directory and not mandatory. I noted to the judge that the legislature could have written it to say ..., "and shall file within fifteen days" but the legislature did not, leaving the operative word as "may" as controlling the time.
The FOI cases involved in the motion to dismiss were in respect to some of the secret meetings held by members of the general assembly when they created SB1160 (that became PA13-3) that I discovered. If found to be true (and I have oodles of evidence showing it to be true) then this aspect of the law, its creation in violation of our state constitution and our due process rights that could be used as a defense against any violations of PA13-3 IMO. I would think that a court could invalidate the entire PA13-3/220 due to this.
Any party aggrieved by the commission's denial of such leave may apply to the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford, within fifteen days of the commission meeting at which such leave was denied, for an order requiring the commission to hear such appeal.
Hearing today was in respect to a motion to dismiss ... several issues I added onto a pending case (via amended complaint) and that I did not include within 15 days. My argument was that the 15 day time limit was directory and not mandatory (hence not something that could be dismissed for that reason) due to the wording of the sentence that only has "may" in it, which is almost always directory and not mandatory. I noted to the judge that the legislature could have written it to say ..., "and shall file within fifteen days" but the legislature did not, leaving the operative word as "may" as controlling the time.
The FOI cases involved in the motion to dismiss were in respect to some of the secret meetings held by members of the general assembly when they created SB1160 (that became PA13-3) that I discovered. If found to be true (and I have oodles of evidence showing it to be true) then this aspect of the law, its creation in violation of our state constitution and our due process rights that could be used as a defense against any violations of PA13-3 IMO. I would think that a court could invalidate the entire PA13-3/220 due to this.