Olson v. Freedom of Information Commission

── Olson v. Freedom of Information Commission ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 21, 2026 Author: Alvord Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Olson v. Freedom of Information Commission MATTHEW OLSON v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION (AC 48010) Alvord, Seeley and Pellegrino, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff appealed from the Superior Court’s judgment dismissing his administrative appeal from the final decision of the defendant Freedom of Information Commission. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded that he was a vexatious requester pursuant to statute ((Rev. to 2021) § 1-206 (b) (5), as amended by Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 2021, No. 21-2, § 148). Held: The Superior Court properly determined that the commission did not misin- terpret the meaning of “vexatious requester” under § 1-206 (b) (5) and that the term “vexatious requester” in § 1-206 (b) (5) was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the plaintiff. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to review, as inadequately briefed, the plaintiff’s claim that the commission’s applica- tion of § 1-206 (b) (5) resulted in viewpoint discrimination in violation of article first, § 5, of the Connecticut constitution, as the plaintiff failed to provide analysis applying the legal authority set forth in his brief to the facts of this case. Argued March 10—officially released April 21, 2026 Procedural History Administrative appeal from the decision of the defen- dant, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial dis- trict of New Britain, where the court, Budzik, J., granted the city of Stamford’s motion to intervene as a defendant; thereafter, the case was tried to the court, Budzik, J.; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed. Cameron L. Atkinson, for the appellant (plaintiff). Danielle L. McGee, commission counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Colleen M. Murphy, for the appellee (defendant). Joseph W. McQuade, with whom, on the brief, was Kenneth Weinstock, for the appellee (intervening defen- dant).  Olson v. Freedom of Information Commission Opinion PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Matthew Olson, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his administrative appeal from the final decision of the defendant, the Freedom of Information Commission (commission), in which the commission determined, inter alia, that the plaintiff is a vexatious requester pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2021) § 1-206 (b) (5), as amended by Public Acts,