Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2001 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rado v. Board of Education of the Borough of Naugatuckgreen2 sentences1999CT Page 347 VI A school board has discretion to accept or reject a recommendation from an impartial hearing panel, Rado v. Board of Education , 216 Conn. 541 , 555 (citation omitted), but a board is bound by the panel's findings of fact unless unsupported by the evidence, Id. 1999CT Page 347 VI A school board has discretion to accept or reject a recommendation from an impartial hearing panel, Rado v. Board of Education , 216 Conn. 541 , 555 (citation omitted), but a board is bound by the panel's findings of fact unless unsupported by the evidence, Id. | 1 | 6 |
Catino v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences1995A school board ‘has discretion to accept or reject a recommendation from an impartial hearing panel,’ though it is bound by the panel’s findings of fact unless unsupported by the evidence.” (Citations omitted.) Rado v. Board of Education, 216 Conn. 541, 555 , 583 A.2d 102 (1990); Tomlinson v. Board of Education, supra, 713-14; see Catino v. Board of Education, 174 Conn. 414, 417-18 , 389 A.2d 754 (1978). 1995A school board ‘has discretion to accept or reject a recommendation from an impartial hearing panel,’ though it is bound by the panel’s findings of fact unless unsupported by the evidence.” (Citations omitted.) Rado v. Board of Education, 216 Conn. 541, 555 , 583 A.2d 102 (1990); Tomlinson v. Board of Education, supra, 713-14; see Catino v. Board of Education, 174 Conn. 414, 417-18 , 389 A.2d 754 (1978). | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barnett v. Board of Education
green
2 sentences2001“The evidence to support a finding, however, must be substantial. ” Barnett v. Board of Education, 232 Conn. 198, 211 , 654 A.2d 720 (1995). 6 Specifically, the plaintiff challenges the following finding of the hearing panel: “Given the number of answer pamphlets which were tampered with in two successive years, it is totally implausible that such a scheme could have been accomplished by students.” The plaintiff does not challenge, however, any of the hearing panel’s other findings, which include the following: (1) “[t]he [mastery test] is a controlled test administered pursuant to guidelines 2001“The evidence to support a finding, however, must be substantial. ” Barnett v. Board of Education, 232 Conn. 198, 211 , 654 A.2d 720 (1995). 6 Specifically, the plaintiff challenges the following finding of the hearing panel: “Given the number of answer pamphlets which were tampered with in two successive years, it is totally implausible that such a scheme could have been accomplished by students.” The plaintiff does not challenge, however, any of the hearing panel’s other findings, which include the following: (1) “[t]he [mastery test] is a controlled test administered pursuant to guidelines | 3 | 1998–2001 |
Petrino v. Board of Education
green
2 sentences1997The board is bound by the panel’s findings of fact, but not by its legal conclusions or by its recommendations.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Barnett v. Board of Education, supra, 206; see also Rado v. Board of Education, 216 Conn. 541, 555 , 583 A.2d 102 (1990); Petrino v. Board of Education, 179 Conn. 428, 430 , 426 A.2d 795 (1980). 1997The board is bound by the panel’s findings of fact, but not by its legal conclusions or by its recommendations.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Barnett v. Board of Education, supra, 206; see also Rado v. Board of Education, 216 Conn. 541, 555 , 583 A.2d 102 (1990); Petrino v. Board of Education, 179 Conn. 428, 430 , 426 A.2d 795 (1980). | 2 | 1995–1997 |
Rogers v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence2001“A school board has discretion to accept or reject a recommendation from an impartial hearing panel, though it is bound by the panel’s findings of fact unless unsupported by the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.