AC44083 - Purnell v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission (Appeal from decision by defendant inland wetlands and watercourses commission granting permit to conduct regulated activities pursuant to Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (§§ 22a-36 through 22a-45); "The plaintiffs, Marguerite Purnell and Matilda Giampietro, appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing their appeal from the decision of the defendant Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission of the Town of Washington (commission) to grant the application of the defendant 101 Wykeham Road, LLC (applicant), for a permit to conduct regulated activities pursuant to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (act), General Statutes § 22a-36 et seq. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that (1) the commission did not violate their right to fundamental fairness, (2) the commission applied a correct legal standard in reviewing the permit application, (3) the commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and (4) the commission was not required to make a finding that no feasible and prudent alternatives existed. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")

AC44102 - Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. State (Writ of mandamus; sovereign immunity; underground storage tank petroleum clean-up program; "The plaintiff, Aldin Associates Limited Partnership, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, the state of Connecticut and Katie Dykes, the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection (commissioner), claiming that the plaintiff's action seeking a writ of mandamus and money damages was barred by sovereign immunity. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the motion to dismiss because (1) sovereign immunity does not bar its claim for mandamus relief, (2) the state either expressly or by force of a necessary implication waived its sovereign immunity under General Statutes § 22a-449g, and (3) the plaintiff alleged a property interest protected under the takings clause of the Connecticut constitution. We conclude that the plaintiff's mandamus claim is not barred by sovereign immunity and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the court.")