Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pellegrino v. O'Neill

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 17, 1984No. 12369Published

1Dissent

Peters, J., with whom Grillo, J.,

joins, dissenting. I disagree with the majority’s formulation of the principal issue that confronts us in this case, and with its resolution of the question of justiciability. I must, therefore, dissent. In brief, it is my view that the plaintiffs should not be deprived of the opportunity that was afforded to the plaintiffs in Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 376 A.2d 359 (1977), to make an evidentiary showing that the legislature has violated the state constitution in failing to appropriate sufficient funds for the constitutionally mandated judicial business…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Immigration & Naturalization Service v. ChadhaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  4. Horton v. MeskillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
  5. Alarm Applications Co. v. Simsbury Volunteer Fire Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API