Raymond v. Freedom of Information Commission (dissenting)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. 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 electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and 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 Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** LANDAU, J., dissenting. Although I agree with the majority s resolution of the issues considered in its opinion, I dissent because I do not think that it is necessary to remand the case to the trial court for further articulation. In responding to this court s order in granting the plaintiff s motion for review, the trial court articulated the facts and legal authority on which it based its decision. The court cited Nagy v. Employees Review Board, 249 Conn. 693, 708 709, 735 A.2d 297 (1999), and Burinskas v. Dept. of Social Services, 240 Conn. 141, 155 56, 691 A.2d 586 (1997). The court also stated: The underlying facts on which this court relied were cited in this court s decision. See Memorandum of Decision, pp. 2 3. The [Freedom of Information Commission] dismissed the plaintiff s complaint for lack of jurisdiction under General Statutes [Rev. to 1995] § 1-21i (b) (1) [now § 1-206 (b) (1)]. In doing so, the [commission] adopted the hearing officer s proposed final decision. The court then cited seven paragraphs from the hearing officer s decision, which were also included in the court s memorandum of decision. To me, it is clear that the court concluded that the substantial justification for the commission s action in dismissing the plaintiff s complaint was its reliance on the hearing officer s proposed final decision. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
