Legal Opinion
Haylett v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 24, 1988No. 13331PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShea, J.
The only issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in determining that General Statutes *548§ 52-491 required the plaintiff, Claris Haylett, to designate a return date in her appeal to the Superior Court, which had been taken as authorized by General Statutes §§ 46a-95 (j)2 and 4-183 (a),3 within sixty days from the date when the defendant commission on human rights and opportunities (CHRO) mailed its adverse decision to her. We conclude that the specification in § 52-49 that appeals “from orders of commissioners and other administrative officers shall be taken to á return day of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Brown v. McConnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- State v. CaplanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
- Williams v. CleavelandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1904
- George v. St. Ann's ChurchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Orcutt's Appeal From ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Town of Killingly v. Connecticut Siting CouncilSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Oakley v. Commission on Human Rights & OpportunitiesConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
- Honan v. GreeneConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
- Prenderville v. SinclairConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016
- Calinescu v. Pegasus Management Company, No. Cv98 262742 (Dec. 30, 1998)Connecticut Superior Court · 1998
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.