Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
6 opinions for “PERPETUA v. FEDERAL SIGNAL”
Opinion NORCOTT, J. The issue before this court is whether the trial court properly determined that the disclosure of the home addresses of five state employees would not constitute an invasion of privacy and, therefore, that the information was not exempt from disclosure under General Statutes § 1-210 (b) (2)1 of the Freedom of Information Act (act). This appeal arose fr
Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employeespublic domain
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit
Sobocinski v. Freedom of Information Commissionpublic domain
Covello, J. This is an appeal from a decision of the Superior Court which held that the defendant freedom of information commission (FOIC) erred in dismissing the plaintiffs complaint. The dispositive issue is whether the Freedom of Information Act, in General Statutes § l-19b (b),1 prohibits disclosure of information or documents to parties involved in pending litigation with the state or its
Fowler v. Smithpublic domain
Opinion by Cercone, J., This is an appeal from the lower court’s grant to defendant of a judgment n.o.v. after a jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $7,500.00. The lower court found plaintiff to be contributorily negligent as a matter of law and thus not entitled to the jury’s verdict. Plaintiff has appealed to this court. Our study of the case compels us to affirm th
Fleckenstein v. Provident Insurancepublic domain
*519 Statement. Bronson, J. This is an action upon a policy of life insurance. The defense is that no contract of insurance was ever completed, the policy was not delivered and no premium ever paid. The jury returned a special verdict. From judgment entered, pursuant thereto, in plaintiff’s favor, and from an order denying a new trial, the def
United States v. Andres Castilleropublic domain
Mr. Justice WAYNE, dissenting: I concur with Mr. Justice Catron and Mr. Justice Grier, for the reasons given by them, and for other reasons expressed in the printed opinions of Jirdge *213McAllister and Judge Hoffman, in dissenting from the judgment of this Court just announced in this case. I think that the claim and title of the petitioner, Andres Cast