Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc

In Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc., 55 Conn. App. 359, 362, 742 A.2d 366 (1999), cert. granted on other grounds, 252 Conn. 918, 919, 744 A.2d 439, 440 (2000), the Court reviewed the well established rules that govern an appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "In ruling upon whether a complaint survives a motion to dismiss, a court must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader. . . . A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction. . . . Because the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine implicates subject matter jurisdiction, the court must decide as a threshold matter whether that doctrine requires dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim. . . . Because a determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary. . . . " (Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc., supra, 362.)