DocketNumber: No. CV-90-372799
Citation Numbers: 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 481
Judges: MALONEY, J.
Filed Date: 7/19/1990
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
I. AGGRIEVEMENT
The defendant contends that the plaintiff is not aggrieved by the DPUC's decision because that decision was essentially predetermined by the Supreme Court's ruling in Connecticut Light Power Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control et al,
In addition to its claims concerning the mandated recalculation, CLP is pursuing various constitutional issues that the Supreme Court expressly declined to address prior CT Page 482 to remanding the case for further action at the administrative level. There is nothing in the Supreme Court's decision, however, that permanently forecloses raising those issues again once the purpose of the remand has been fulfilled. The plaintiff CLP sets forth claims adequate to establish aggrievement. The defendant's contention in this regard cannot be sustained.
II. COLLATERAL ATTACK
The defendant argues that CLP's appeal is essentially a prohibited collateral attack on the Supreme Court's decision. This is in reference to the constitutional issues which were first raised in the earlier appeal but not decided by the Supreme Court. The basis of the Supreme Court's decision to sidestep those issues, however, was its determination that the DPUC had misapplied C.G.S.
III. CONTESTED CASE
The DPUC claims that the appeal was not from an agency decision in a "contested case" as required by C.G.S.
For all of the above reasons the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied
MALONEY, J.