Legal Opinion
State v. Fishman
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided March 14, 1963No. File No. CR 1-2896PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPruyn, J.
The defendant, a professional bondsman, in a trial to the court was found guilty on nine counts of charging commissions or fees as a professional bondsman in excess of the maximum limits prescribed by § 29-151 of the General Statutes. On his appeal, he admits the facts of overcharge but asserts that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional as depriving him of the equal protection of the laws within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the United States and Connecticut constitutions. U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1; Conn. Const. art. I §§ 1, 12.
Connecticut, like other…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Snyder v. Town of NewtownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. VosburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Palumbo v. George A. Fuller Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
- Chudnov v. Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- Schwartz v. KellySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Allied Fidelity Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- De La Cruz v. QuackenbushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Allied Fidelity Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- City of Paducah v. Johnson Bonding Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1974