Legal Opinion
Horton v. Meskill
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 25, 1982PublishedCited by 68 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpeziale, C. J.
This is a consolidated appeal from the trial court’s denial of three motions to intervene in this case. The appellants (hereinafter *189the applicants) are: the towns of Killingly and Putnam and their boards of education (Killingly and Putnam); the towns of North Haven, Orange, Woodbridge, Avon, Farmington, Fairfield, and Westport (Suburban Municipalities); and the city of New Haven and its board of education (New Haven).1 The applicants claim that the denial of their motions to intervene was erroneous because: (1) they had a right to intervene, and (2) assuming their intervention was permissive…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- 17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 528, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7813 Eddie Stallworth v. Monsanto Company v. J. W. Palmer, Movants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
- Horton v. MeskillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor, Mike Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- Smith v. GaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by68 opinions
- In re Baby Girl B.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Sheff v. O'NeillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public HealthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Horton v. MeskillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.