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.
7 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cassella v. Civil Service Commissiongreen2 sentences1991In Cassella v. Civil Service Commission, 4 Conn. App. 359 (1985), the Appellate Court also relied upon Richardson v. Pearles, supra, to find that the plaintiff was afforded a fair and impartial hearing and was not deprived of due process of law by the written hearsay evidence admitted by the commission. 1987Cassella v. Civil Service Commission, 4 Conn. App. 359, 372, 374 , 494 A.2d 909 (1985). | 1 | 2 |
Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rozbickigreen2 sentences1998In order that the plaintiff shall be assured a fair and impartial hearing on remand, we direct, pursuant to our inherent authority to regulate attorney conduct; see Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232, 238-39 , 558 A.2d 986 (1989); that any referral of this matter by the defendant to a reviewing committee; see footnote 12 of this opinion; shall be to a newly constituted committee. 1998In order that the plaintiff shall be assured a fair and impartial hearing on remand, we direct, pursuant to our inherent authority to regulate attorney conduct; see Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232, 238-39 , 558 A.2d 986 (1989); that any referral of this matter by the defendant to a reviewing committee; see footnote 12 of this opinion; shall be to a newly constituted committee. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Downey v. Retirement Board of Waterbury
neutral
1 sentence2002In support of their appeal, the plaintiffs set forth the following claimed errors: (1) the hearing was inadequate because (a) the "invitation" was improper, (b) the plaintiffs were denied the right to conduct discovery, depose and cross-examine witnesses; (2) the board did not conduct a fair and impartial hearing; (3) the board's decision was not supported by the record; and (4) the board lacked the authority under the collective bargaining agreement to modify the plaintiff's retirement benefits. 3 "Pleading and proof of aggrievement [is] . . . a prerequisite to a trial court's jurisdiction ov | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Brunori
green
1 sentence2002"The question of aggrievement is essentially one of standing . . . unless the plaintiff establishe[s] that he was aggrieved by the decision of the board, he [has] no standing to appeal." Id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Downey v. Retirement Board
green
2 sentences2002In support of their appeal, the plaintiffs set forth the following claimed errors: (1) the hearing was inadequate because (a) the "invitation" was improper, (b) the plaintiffs were denied the right to conduct discovery, depose and cross-examine witnesses; (2) the board did not conduct a fair and impartial hearing; (3) the board's decision was not supported by the record; and (4) the board lacked the authority under the collective bargaining agreement to modify the plaintiff's retirement benefits. 3 "Pleading and proof of aggrievement [is] . . . a prerequisite to a trial court's jurisdiction ov 2002In support of their appeal, the plaintiffs set forth the following claimed errors: (1) the hearing was inadequate because (a) the "invitation" was improper, (b) the plaintiffs were denied the right to conduct discovery, depose and cross-examine witnesses; (2) the board did not conduct a fair and impartial hearing; (3) the board's decision was not supported by the record; and (4) the board lacked the authority under the collective bargaining agreement to modify the plaintiff's retirement benefits. 3 "Pleading and proof of aggrievement [is] . . . a prerequisite to a trial court's jurisdiction ov | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
1 sentence2001Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (1976) . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Pet v. Department of Health Services
green
1 sentence1994This involves the "opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Pet v. Department of Health Services , 207 Conn. 346 , 355 (1988). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Josephson v. Planning Board
green
1 sentence1970In Josephson v. Planning Board, 151 Conn. 489 , John Denham, a member of the Stamford planning board, participated in a decision to make a change in the master plan which was a prerequisite to reclassification of a fifteen-acre parcel. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.