Reynolds v. Dept. of Public Utility Control
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. ****************************************************** CLARENCE O. REYNOLDS v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITY CONTROL ET AL. (SC 16894) Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Katz, Palmer and Zarella, Js. Argued September 26 officially released November 18, 2003 Nancy Burton, for the appellant (plaintiff). Robert L. Marconi, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (named defendant). Duncan Ross MacKay, with whom, on the brief, was Alicia B. Davenport, for the appellee (defendant Northeast Nuclear Energy Company). Opinion PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Clarence O. Reynolds, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action against the defendants, the state department of public utility control (department) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (Northeast).1 The plaintiff claims that the trial court: (1) improperly determined that General Statutes §§ 16-35a, 16-8a and 16-8d do not provide a direct cause of action against the department; (2) improperly determined that § 16-35a precludes him from bringing an administrative appeal from the department s findings; and (3) improperly determined that his complaint did not state a cause of action against Northeast.2 Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuade us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The issues were resolved properly in the trial court s concise and well reasoned memorandum of decision. Reynolds v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 48 Conn. Sup. 188, A.2d (2001). The memorandum fully addresses all issues raised by the plaintiff in this appeal, and we therefore adopt it as a proper statement of the issues and the applicable law concerning those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 259 Conn. 45, 55, 787 A.2d 530 (2002). Accordingly, we do not reach the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel proffered by Northeast as alternate grounds for affirmance. The judgment is affirmed. 1 The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of the trial court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1. 2 In his brief, the plaintiff also cursorily claimed that the trial court improperly found that the department had investigated his complaint and had found no merit in it. Our examination of the record discloses, however, that the plaintiff did in fact allege in his complaint to the trial court that the department had dismissed his administrative complaint because it had found that Northeast was justified in terminating his employment. As such, the trial court properly characterized the facts as the plaintiff had pleaded them. In any event, a different characterization of the department s findings would not help the plaintiff overcome the legal barriers to his cause of action or administrative appeal from the department s findings.
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.
