Page 32 - CLT060721

32 ■ JUNE 7, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT remanded the case. Plaintiffs argued that under
the circumstances, the trial court had jurisdic-
tion to consider the merits of their administrative
appeal even though they did not file the appeal
CIVIL PROCEDURE • within 45 days from the denial of their petition.
ELECTION AND POLITICAL LAW They claimed that because the appeal was filed
within 45 days of the date on which defendant
Court Held That Trial Court Had formally voted to deny the petition, the lower
Jurisdiction to Hear Plaintiffs’ court had jurisdiction. The court agreed. It
found that plaintiff’s petition was constructively
Administrative Appeal denied by operation of law 25 days after its filing.
However, defendant took up plaintiffs’ petition
CASE: Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Comm’n
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court for reconsideration at its special meeting twelve
DOC. NO.: SC 20305 days later. Therefore, under the very specific set
COURT OPINION BY: Palmer of facts, the court held that it was appropriate to
DATE: May 20, 2021 • PAGES: 12 treat defendant’s action as a reconsideration of
Defendant determined that plaintiffs, who were its denial of the petition because that was what
candidates for state elective office, had received defendant itself held that action out to be. The
funding for their campaigns through the Citi- court determined that the trial court had jurisdic-
zens’ Election Program and had violated certain tion to entertain plaintiffs’ appeal and remanded
state election laws related to the program. De- for further proceedings.
fendant then imposed civil fines for the viola-
tions. Plaintiffs filed a petition for reconsidera- NATIVE AMERICAN LAW
tion, which provided that an agency’s failure to
decide whether to reconsider a decision within 25 Lower Court’s Judgment Reversed
days of the filing of the petition will constitute a in Part in Tribal Sovereign Immunity
denial of the petition. Shortly after the 25-day
period had elapsed without a decision by defen- Lawsuit
dant, the matter of the petition appeared on the CASE: Great Plains Lending LLC v. Dep’t. of Banking
agenda of an upcoming special meeting. After COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
that special meeting, defendant notified plaintiffs DOC. NO.: SC 20340
that their petition had been considered at a spe- COURT OPINION BY: Robinson
cial meeting and denied. Plaintiffs appealed to DATE: May 20, 2021 • PAGES: 30
the lower court, which dismissed the appeal as Great Plains Lending was created pursuant to
untimely. Plaintiffs appealed again, claiming that the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians Limited
their administrative appeal was timely filed. The Liability Company Act in 2011. John Shot-
court reversed the judgment of the trial court and ton, chairman of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune