Preview:

****************************************************** 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. ****************************************************** THERESA KISH ET AL. v. SALO S. COHN ET AL. (AC 18382)
O'Connell, C. J., and Foti and Landau, Js.1 Argued December 7, 1999--officially released August 8, 2000 Counsel

Peter M. Ryan, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Michael P. Sweeney, with whom, on the brief, was Robert A. Slavitt, for the appellees (named defendant et al.). John A. Milici, for the appellees (defendant Charles C. Slama et al.).
Opinion

O'CONNELL, C. J. The plaintiffs2 appeal from the trial court's judgment rendered following the granting of the defendants'3 motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that (1) the court improperly determined that they were required to exhaust their administrative remedies because recourse to the department of environmental protection (department) would be a futile

exercise and the procedures available to them are inadequate and (2) General Statutes

Download Kish v. Cohn.pdf

Connecticut Law