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.
10 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1974–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dill v. Board of County Commissioners of Lincoln Countygreen2 sentences2005Thus, the doctrine of state action immunity which has developed under federal antitrust law is also an available defense to a suit against a municipality for a violation of Florida’s antitrust laws.”), review denied, 890 So. 2d 1114 (2004); see also Dill v. Board of County Commissioners, 928 P.2d 809, 815-16 (Colo. App. 1996) (“any person exempt or immune under federal antitrust law is exempt from the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992”). 2005Thus, the doctrine of state action immunity which has developed under federal antitrust law is also an available defense to a suit against a municipality for a violation of Florida's antitrust laws."), review denied, Docket No. SC04-1382, 890 So.2d 1114 , 2004 Fla. Lexis 2183 (November 22, 2004); see also Dill v. Board of County Commissioners, 928 P.2d 809, 815-16 (Colo.App.1996) ("any person exempt or immune under federal antitrust law is exempt from the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992"). | 1 | 1 |
Fulcher v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Thus, the doctrine of state action immunity which has developed under federal antitrust law is also an available defense to a suit against a municipality for a violation of Florida’s antitrust laws.”), review denied, 890 So. 2d 1114 (2004); see also Dill v. Board of County Commissioners, 928 P.2d 809, 815-16 (Colo. App. 1996) (“any person exempt or immune under federal antitrust law is exempt from the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992”). 2005Thus, the doctrine of state action immunity which has developed under federal antitrust law is also an available defense to a suit against a municipality for a violation of Florida's antitrust laws."), review denied, Docket No. SC04-1382, 890 So.2d 1114 , 2004 Fla. Lexis 2183 (November 22, 2004); see also Dill v. Board of County Commissioners, 928 P.2d 809, 815-16 (Colo.App.1996) ("any person exempt or immune under federal antitrust law is exempt from the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992"). | 1 | 1 |
Acro Technology, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Actgreen2 sentences2001Savage v. Aronson, 214 Conn. 256, 267 , 571 A.2d 696 (1990).” (Emphasis added.) Aero Technology, Inc. v. Administrator, 25 Conn. App. 130, 135, 593 A.2d 154 (1991). “[A]s a creation of the state, a municipality may not challenge the constitutionality of the state’s laws.” Horton v. Meskill, supra, 196 . 2001Savage v. Aronson, 214 Conn. 256, 267 , 571 A.2d 696 (1990).” (Emphasis added.) Aero Technology, Inc. v. Administrator, 25 Conn. App. 130, 135, 593 A.2d 154 (1991). “[A]s a creation of the state, a municipality may not challenge the constitutionality of the state’s laws.” Horton v. Meskill, supra, 196 . | 1 | 1 |
Doran v. Waterbury Parking Authoritygreen2 sentences1999See Doran v. Waterbury Parking Authority , 35 Conn. Sup. 280 , 281-82 , 408 A.2d 277 (1979). 1999See Doran v. Waterbury Parking Authority , 35 Conn. Sup. 280 , 281-82 , 408 A.2d 277 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
City of Norwich v. Town of Lebanongreen1 sentence1994Id., 123 citing Norwich v. Lebanon , supra, 710. | 1 | 1 |
Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. City of Norwalkgreen2 sentences1982Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 435 A.2d 980 (1980); Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 148 Conn. 238, 245 , 169 A.2d 891 (1961); Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 190 , 198 A. 746 (1938); see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk, 179 Conn. 111, 115 , 425 A.2d 576 (1979); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 107-108 , 355 A.2d 1 (1974); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 291-92 , 294 A.2d 67 (1972); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 137-39 , 285 A.2d 318 (1971), for an exception to this rule not relevant here. 1982Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 435 A.2d 980 (1980); Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 148 Conn. 238, 245 , 169 A.2d 891 (1961); Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 190 , 198 A. 746 (1938); see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk, 179 Conn. 111, 115 , 425 A.2d 576 (1979); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 107-108 , 355 A.2d 1 (1974); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 291-92 , 294 A.2d 67 (1972); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 137-39 , 285 A.2d 318 (1971), for an exception to this rule not relevant here. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Kelley
green
2 sentences1994The one year time limit for an action under § 12-119 is not jurisdictional and must be raised by the municipality as a defense, Wilson v. Kelley , 224 Conn. 110 , 121 , because unlike § 12-118 it is a substitute for legal and equitable rights which existed at common law. 1993Wilson v. Kelley, 224 Conn. 110 , 123 . | 2 | 1993–1994 |
Ducharme v. City of Putnam
green
2 sentences1974The defendant has gone to some lengths to distinguish Sanger on the ground that it was “based on the belief that a municipality could not challenge what the Legislature did by legislation,” urging that it therefore has been overruled by the later decision of this court in Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135 , 285 A.2d 318 , which held that a city, although a subdivision of the state, has sufficient interest and standing to raise a constitutional issue where the city was properly in *108 court on non-constitutional questions. 1974The defendant has gone to some lengths to distinguish Sanger on the ground that it was “based on the belief that a municipality could not challenge what the Legislature did by legislation,” urging that it therefore has been overruled by the later decision of this court in Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135 , 285 A.2d 318 , which held that a city, although a subdivision of the state, has sufficient interest and standing to raise a constitutional issue where the city was properly in *108 court on non-constitutional questions. | 2 | 1974–1982 |
Savage v. Aronson
green
2 sentences2001Savage v. Aronson, 214 Conn. 256, 267 , 571 A.2d 696 (1990).” (Emphasis added.) Aero Technology, Inc. v. Administrator, 25 Conn. App. 130, 135, 593 A.2d 154 (1991). “[A]s a creation of the state, a municipality may not challenge the constitutionality of the state’s laws.” Horton v. Meskill, supra, 196 . 2001Savage v. Aronson, 214 Conn. 256, 267 , 571 A.2d 696 (1990).” (Emphasis added.) Aero Technology, Inc. v. Administrator, 25 Conn. App. 130, 135, 593 A.2d 154 (1991). “[A]s a creation of the state, a municipality may not challenge the constitutionality of the state’s laws.” Horton v. Meskill, supra, 196 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Cecio Bros. v. Town of Greenwich
green
1 sentence2001The City has cited Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Greenwich, 156 Conn. 561 , 568 CT Page 2191 (1968), as holding that a party cannot recovery from a municipality on a claim of unjust enrichment without proof that the municipality expected to pay for the services. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Borough of Torrington v. Messenger
neutral
1 sentence1997In Torrington v. Messenger, the Court opined: "It should be borne in mind also, in reading this statute, that it is one in derogation of private rights, and therefore should be strictly construed against its grant of power." 74 Conn. 321 , 325 (1902). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Ferguson v. Borough of Stamford
neutral
2 sentences1989We have stated previously: “ ‘[W]here a statute reasonably admits of two constructions, one valid and the other invalid on the ground of unconstitutionality, courts should adopt the construction which will uphold the statute . . . ” Lublin v. Brown, 168 Conn. 212, 219-20 , 362 A.2d 769 (1975), quoting Adams v. Rubinow, 157 Conn. 150, 153 , 251 A.2d 49 (1968); Kellems v. Brown, supra, 486; Ferguson v. Borough of Stamford, 60 Conn. 432, 447 , 22 A. 782 (1891). 1989We have stated previously: “ ‘[W]here a statute reasonably admits of two constructions, one valid and the other invalid on the ground of unconstitutionality, courts should adopt the construction which will uphold the statute . . . ” Lublin v. Brown, 168 Conn. 212, 219-20 , 362 A.2d 769 (1975), quoting Adams v. Rubinow, 157 Conn. 150, 153 , 251 A.2d 49 (1968); Kellems v. Brown, supra, 486; Ferguson v. Borough of Stamford, 60 Conn. 432, 447 , 22 A. 782 (1891). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Lublin v. Brown
green
2 sentences1989We have stated previously: “ ‘[W]here a statute reasonably admits of two constructions, one valid and the other invalid on the ground of unconstitutionality, courts should adopt the construction which will uphold the statute . . . ” Lublin v. Brown, 168 Conn. 212, 219-20 , 362 A.2d 769 (1975), quoting Adams v. Rubinow, 157 Conn. 150, 153 , 251 A.2d 49 (1968); Kellems v. Brown, supra, 486; Ferguson v. Borough of Stamford, 60 Conn. 432, 447 , 22 A. 782 (1891). 1989We have stated previously: “ ‘[W]here a statute reasonably admits of two constructions, one valid and the other invalid on the ground of unconstitutionality, courts should adopt the construction which will uphold the statute . . . ” Lublin v. Brown, 168 Conn. 212, 219-20 , 362 A.2d 769 (1975), quoting Adams v. Rubinow, 157 Conn. 150, 153 , 251 A.2d 49 (1968); Kellems v. Brown, supra, 486; Ferguson v. Borough of Stamford, 60 Conn. 432, 447 , 22 A. 782 (1891). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Adams v. Rubinow
green
2 sentences1989We have stated previously: “ ‘[W]here a statute reasonably admits of two constructions, one valid and the other invalid on the ground of unconstitutionality, courts should adopt the construction which will uphold the statute . . . ” Lublin v. Brown, 168 Conn. 212, 219-20 , 362 A.2d 769 (1975), quoting Adams v. Rubinow, 157 Conn. 150, 153 , 251 A.2d 49 (1968); Kellems v. Brown, supra, 486; Ferguson v. Borough of Stamford, 60 Conn. 432, 447 , 22 A. 782 (1891). 1989We have stated previously: “ ‘[W]here a statute reasonably admits of two constructions, one valid and the other invalid on the ground of unconstitutionality, courts should adopt the construction which will uphold the statute . . . ” Lublin v. Brown, 168 Conn. 212, 219-20 , 362 A.2d 769 (1975), quoting Adams v. Rubinow, 157 Conn. 150, 153 , 251 A.2d 49 (1968); Kellems v. Brown, supra, 486; Ferguson v. Borough of Stamford, 60 Conn. 432, 447 , 22 A. 782 (1891). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Town of Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education
green
2 sentences1982Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 435 A.2d 980 (1980); Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 148 Conn. 238, 245 , 169 A.2d 891 (1961); Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 190 , 198 A. 746 (1938); see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk, 179 Conn. 111, 115 , 425 A.2d 576 (1979); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 107-108 , 355 A.2d 1 (1974); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 291-92 , 294 A.2d 67 (1972); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 137-39 , 285 A.2d 318 (1971), for an exception to this rule not relevant here. 1982Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 435 A.2d 980 (1980); Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 148 Conn. 238, 245 , 169 A.2d 891 (1961); Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 190 , 198 A. 746 (1938); see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk, 179 Conn. 111, 115 , 425 A.2d 576 (1979); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 107-108 , 355 A.2d 1 (1974); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 291-92 , 294 A.2d 67 (1972); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 137-39 , 285 A.2d 318 (1971), for an exception to this rule not relevant here. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Sanger v. City of Bridgeport
green
2 sentences1982Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 435 A.2d 980 (1980); Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 148 Conn. 238, 245 , 169 A.2d 891 (1961); Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 190 , 198 A. 746 (1938); see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk, 179 Conn. 111, 115 , 425 A.2d 576 (1979); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 107-108 , 355 A.2d 1 (1974); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 291-92 , 294 A.2d 67 (1972); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 137-39 , 285 A.2d 318 (1971), for an exception to this rule not relevant here. 1982Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 435 A.2d 980 (1980); Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 148 Conn. 238, 245 , 169 A.2d 891 (1961); Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 190 , 198 A. 746 (1938); see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk, 179 Conn. 111, 115 , 425 A.2d 576 (1979); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 107-108 , 355 A.2d 1 (1974); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 291-92 , 294 A.2d 67 (1972); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 137-39 , 285 A.2d 318 (1971), for an exception to this rule not relevant here. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Town of Berlin v. Santaguida
green
2 sentences1982Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 435 A.2d 980 (1980); Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 148 Conn. 238, 245 , 169 A.2d 891 (1961); Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 190 , 198 A. 746 (1938); see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk, 179 Conn. 111, 115 , 425 A.2d 576 (1979); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 107-108 , 355 A.2d 1 (1974); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 291-92 , 294 A.2d 67 (1972); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 137-39 , 285 A.2d 318 (1971), for an exception to this rule not relevant here. 1982Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 435 A.2d 980 (1980); Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 148 Conn. 238, 245 , 169 A.2d 891 (1961); Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 190 , 198 A. 746 (1938); see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk, 179 Conn. 111, 115 , 425 A.2d 576 (1979); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 107-108 , 355 A.2d 1 (1974); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 291-92 , 294 A.2d 67 (1972); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 137-39 , 285 A.2d 318 (1971), for an exception to this rule not relevant here. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Hillier v. City of East Hartford
green
2 sentences1982Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 435 A.2d 980 (1980); Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 148 Conn. 238, 245 , 169 A.2d 891 (1961); Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 190 , 198 A. 746 (1938); see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk, 179 Conn. 111, 115 , 425 A.2d 576 (1979); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 107-108 , 355 A.2d 1 (1974); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 291-92 , 294 A.2d 67 (1972); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 137-39 , 285 A.2d 318 (1971), for an exception to this rule not relevant here. 1982Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 435 A.2d 980 (1980); Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 148 Conn. 238, 245 , 169 A.2d 891 (1961); Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 190 , 198 A. 746 (1938); see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk, 179 Conn. 111, 115 , 425 A.2d 576 (1979); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 107-108 , 355 A.2d 1 (1974); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 291-92 , 294 A.2d 67 (1972); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 137-39 , 285 A.2d 318 (1971), for an exception to this rule not relevant here. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Tough v. Ives
green
2 sentences1982Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 435 A.2d 980 (1980); Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 148 Conn. 238, 245 , 169 A.2d 891 (1961); Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 190 , 198 A. 746 (1938); see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk, 179 Conn. 111, 115 , 425 A.2d 576 (1979); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 107-108 , 355 A.2d 1 (1974); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 291-92 , 294 A.2d 67 (1972); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 137-39 , 285 A.2d 318 (1971), for an exception to this rule not relevant here. 1982Berlin v. Santaguida, 181 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 435 A.2d 980 (1980); Waterford v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 148 Conn. 238, 245 , 169 A.2d 891 (1961); Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 190 , 198 A. 746 (1938); see Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Norwalk, 179 Conn. 111, 115 , 425 A.2d 576 (1979); Hillier v. East Hartford, 167 Conn. 100, 107-108 , 355 A.2d 1 (1974); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 291-92 , 294 A.2d 67 (1972); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 137-39 , 285 A.2d 318 (1971), for an exception to this rule not relevant here. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.