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.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermillgreen2 sentences2024The opportunity to present one’s side of the story is generally referred to as a Loudermill hearing.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2663 v. Dept. of Children & Families, 317 Conn. 238 , 243 n.3, 117 A.3d 470 (2015); see also Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 , 105 S. Ct. 1487 , 84 L. 2024The opportunity to present one’s side of the story is generally referred to as a Loudermill hearing.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2663 v. Dept. of Children & Families, 317 Conn. 238 , 243 n.3, 117 A.3d 470 (2015); see also Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 , 105 S. Ct. 1487 , 84 L. | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2025Moreover, the plaintiff has not applied the traditional three part balancing test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. 2025Moreover, the plaintiff has not applied the traditional three part balancing test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565 v. Department of Correction
green
2 sentences2024Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment vacating the award as against public policy.20 20 See General Statutes § 52-418 (b) (‘‘if an award issued pursuant to a grievance taken under a collective bargaining agreement is vacated the court or judge shall direct a rehearing unless either party affirmatively pleads and the court or judge determines that there is no issue in dispute’’); AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565 v. Dept. of Correction, 298 Conn. 824, 852 , 6 A.3d 1142 (2010) (when award issued pursuant to grievance taken under collective bargaining agreement is vacated on public p 2024Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment vacating the award as against public policy.20 20 See General Statutes § 52-418 (b) (‘‘if an award issued pursuant to a grievance taken under a collective bargaining agreement is vacated the court or judge shall direct a rehearing unless either party affirmatively pleads and the court or judge determines that there is no issue in dispute’’); AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565 v. Dept. of Correction, 298 Conn. 824, 852 , 6 A.3d 1142 (2010) (when award issued pursuant to grievance taken under collective bargaining agreement is vacated on public p | 1 | 2024–2024 |
AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2663 v. Department of Children & Families
green
2 sentences2015The court also concluded that it was not necessary for negligence to be cited as the reason for Listro’s termination during the Loudermill hearing or in the termination letter because both the hearing and the letter ‘‘clearly identified her behavior and the events that constituted the serious off duty misconduct at issue.’’ Id., 13 . 2015The court also concluded that it was not necessary for negligence to be cited as the reason for Listro’s termination during the Loudermill hearing or in the termination letter because both the hearing and the letter ‘‘clearly identified her behavior and the events that constituted the serious off duty misconduct at issue.’’ Id., 13 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.
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.