Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' dismissal and remanded the case, holding that the planning and zoning commission hearing was not quasi-judicial in nature and therefore the defendant's statements were not entitled to absolute immunity.
Excerpt
Pursuant to the common law of this state, communications made in the course of and in furtherance of administrative proceedings that are quasi-judicial in nature are absolutely privileged. Pursuant further to Kelley v. Bonney (221 Conn. 549), in determining whether an administrative proceeding is quasi-judicial in nature, a court may consider whether the body or entity conducting the proceeding has the discretion to apply the law to the facts and the authority (1) to exercise judgment and discretion, (2) to hear and determine or to ascertain facts and decide, (3) to make binding orders and judgments, (4) to affect the personal or property rights of private persons, (5) to examine witnesses and to hear the litigation of the issues, and (6) to enforce decisions or to impose penalties. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for, inter alia, defamation in connec- tion with statements that the defendant had made about the plaintiff at a public hearing before a town planning and zoning commission in connection with the plaintiff's application for a special permit to con- struct a new house and to install a new sewer line on his property. At the hearing, the defendant expressed her concerns regarding the plaintiff's application, stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff had not been trustworthy in prior dealings involving his application, that he had ''a serious criminal past,'' and that he had paid more than $40 million in fines to the federal agency charged with enforcing federal securities laws. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that her statements were entitled to absolute immunity. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that her statements were entitled to absolute immu- nity because the proceeding before the commission was quasi-judicial in nature and the defendant's statements were pertinent to the proceeding. Accordingly, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing th
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.