Sessions v. State of Connecticut, 404 F.2d 342 (2d Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Sessions v. State of Connecticut, 404 F.2d 342 (2d Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission v. Cedar Rapids Community School District (iowa, 1974-10-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission v. Cedar Rapids Community School District
Iowa · 1974 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Cranston v. Industrial Commission, 246 Wis. 287 , 16 N.W.2d 865 , 866 and Sessions v. State of Connecticut, 293 F.Supp. 834, 838-839 (D.Conn.1968), aff’d, 404 F.2d 342 (2 Cir. 1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Howard W. Sessions, Individually, and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, and as a Public Service Matter
v.
State of Connecticut, by Its Officials: Hon. John Dempsey, Individually
32594.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 21, 1968.
404 F.2d 342
Published

404 F.2d 342

Howard W. SESSIONS, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and as a public service
matter, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, by its Officials: Hon. John Dempsey,
individually, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 179, Docket 32594.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 14, 1968.
Decided Nov. 21, 1968.

Howard W. Sessions, pro se.

David B. Beizer, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., and F. Michael Ahern, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., on brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before MEDINA, FRIENDLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Plaintiff, a former administrative assistant to the Director of the Connecticut State Welfare Department, appeals from the dismissal of his declaratory judgment action to review the constitutionality of the Connecticut Merit System Act, Title 5, Conn.Gen.Stat. (rev.1958) and from the denial of his request for a three-judge court to hear the case. The gravamen of his complaint is that his constitutional rights were infringed by the application of the procedures resulting in his dismissal pursuant to Title 5, supra.

2

We affirm on Judge Clarie's opinion below, D.C., 293 F.Supp. 834.

3

Affirmed.