Legal Opinion
Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Veneri
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 9, 1968PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThim, J.
The plaintiff instituted the present action alleging that the defendants, husband and wife, in violation of General Statutes § 53-35, as amended by No. 177, § 1, of the 1967 Public Acts, refused to rent an apartment unit to Bert T. Pittman because he is a Negro. Pursuant to General Statutes § 53-36a, as amended by No. 177, § 2, of tbe 1967 Public Acts, tbe plaintiff sought to have the defendants temporarily and permanently enjoined from renting the apartment unit to anyone other than Pittman. The trial court granted the temporary injunction but subsequently rendered judgment denying the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Quint v. O'ConnellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
- Lewis v. Michigan Millers Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Fritz v. MazurekSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Iodice v. RusnakSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
- State Commission for Human Rights v. Suburban Associates, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1967
3Cited by9 opinions
- Botticello v. StefanoviczSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Covino v. PfefferSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Hames v. HamesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. Mutual Communications Associates, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Ianotti v. CiccioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.