Herman v. Division of Special Revenue
In Herman v. Division of Special Revenue, 193 Conn. 379, 477 A.2d 119 (1984), the Supreme Court stated: 'In order for a proceeding to qualify as a 'hearing' for the purposes of a contested case, the party must have a statutory or regulatory right to be heard by the agency.' . . . In Herman, the division of special revenue granted a hearing at the request of a plaintiff who wished to be reinstated as a jai alai patron after he had been ejected from the Milford Jai Alai Fronton. The division stated that, although it would provide a hearing, it was not required to do so by statute or regulation. . . . At the hearing, the plaintiff asked that he be reinstated, and his request was denied.
On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that the hearing regarding his reinstatement was a 'contested case' under 4-166 (2) because it was a hearing that was in fact held before the division.
In reviewing the claim, the court in Herman found that a 'hearing' had taken place; it then addressed the issue of whether the fact that a hearing had actually been held established the proceedings as a contested case under the UAPA.