302 Conn. 158
Conn.2011Background
- CHRO filed a discrimination action on behalf of a complainant against the Housing Authority of the Town of Litchfield and D & H Property Management.
- Complainant moved to intervene in the CHRO action, asserting intervention as of right and permissive intervention.
- Trial court denied the complainant's motion to intervene.
- Appellate Court reversed, allowing implied intervention under § 46a-83(d)(2).
- This Court granted certification to appeal, focusing on whether the complainant may intervene as of right.
- Before decision, Public Act 2011-237 amended § 46a-83 to allow intervention as of right for complainants; the Act becomes effective Oct. 1, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complainant may intervene as of right under § 46a-83(d)(2). | Kilby could intervene as of right. | No right to intervention under the statute as written. | Certification improvidently granted; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sil v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 242 Conn. 186 (1997) (dismissal when new rule alters policy after certification)
- Lumber Mutual Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 239 Conn. 798 (1997) (certification improvidently granted when policy changes)
- In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345 (1994) (appeal dismissed when new rule of practice established)
- Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 60 Conn.App. 134 (2000) (intervention standards in state administrative actions)
- Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 279 Conn. 447 (2006) (test for intervention adopted; statutory implications)