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. ******************************************************

BRUCE MORRIS ET AL. v. ROBERT CONGDON ET AL. (SC 17336)
Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz and Zarella, Js. Argued November 28, 2005--officially released March 28, 2006

Richard S. Cody, with whom, on the brief, was Jon B. Chase, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Frank Manfredi, with whom was Mark Mandell, for the appellees (defendants).

Opinion

SULLIVAN, C. J. The plaintiffs, Bruce Morris and George Kleeman, residents of the town of Preston (town), appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the board of selectmen of the town (board) and its individual members.1 We granted certification to appeal limited to the following issue: ``Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendants were not required to warn a special town meeting in accordance with the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandamus?'' Morris v. Congdon, 272 Conn. 913, 866 A.2d 1284 (2005). We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court's opinion sets forth the following relevant facts and procedural history. ``The plaintiffs, who are residents of the town . . . submitted an application to the town clerk signed by more than fifty qualified voters. In the application, the plaintiffs called for the board to warn a special town meeting to consider and act upon a motion to eliminate the position of a paid full-time or part-time town planner.2 The board refused to warn a meeting. The plaintiffs filed an action in the Superior Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the board to warn a town meeting pursuant to General Statutes

Download Morris v. Congdon.pdf

Connecticut Law