Williams v. Mansfield

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STEPHEN J. WILLIAMS v. TOWN OF MANSFIELD (AC 44152) Bright, C. J., and Prescott and Elgo, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the parking violation assessment issued against him by the hearing officer for the defendant town of Mansfield. After the town had issued the plaintiff a $30 parking ticket, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the town. Following a hearing, the town’s hearing officer issued the subject assessment against the plaintiff. The plaintiff then appealed to the Superior Court, pursuant to the applicable statute (§ 7-152b (g)), by filing a petition to reopen the assessment. The court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the appeal was moot as a result of the town’s having elected to void the underlying parking ticket. There- after, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for an order of mandamus to compel the clerk of the court to tax costs he had incurred by filing and litigating the appeal, concluding that the plaintiff was not the prevail- ing party, and, therefore, he was not entitled to the taxation of costs under the applicable statute (§ 52-257). On the plaintiff’s appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal as moot because it could have granted the plaintiff practical relief by sustaining his appeal and ordering the town’s hearing officer to vacate the assessment: although the town voided the parking ticket, the assessment against the plaintiff remained in effect, as the parking ticket, which is an allegation that the plaintiff committed a parking violation, was separate and distinct from the assessment, which is an adjudication of the plaintiff’s liability for the alleged violation, and, therefore, the assessment had independent legal significance from the parking ticket; accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with direction to sustain the appeal and to …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals