Legal Opinion
Civil Service Commission v. Pekrul
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided October 18, 1989No. FILE Nos. 087414, 087653PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBarnett, J.
Before the court are motions to dismiss 1 the above-captioned cases, which are actions in quo warranto and mandamus respectively. In both cases, the plaintiffs are the civil service commission of the city of Waterbury, Edmund Jayaraj, as administrator of the commission and director of personnel of the city of Waterbury, and Jayaraj, individually, as a Waterbury resident and taxpayer.
The defendants in the quo warranto action (No. 087414) are Edward Pekrul, Joseph Pesce, Edward Stephens, James Clary and Phillip Rinaldi, five police officers, who, the plaintiffs claim, have been illegally…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Flast v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers v. BrockSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Pulaski County v. Jacuzzi Bros. DivisionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1994
- Civil Service Commission v. PekrulSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Gesmonde, Pietrosimone, Sgrignari, Pinkus & Sachs v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Meyer v. CollinsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- Aetna Casualty Sur. Co. v. Rodgers, No. Cv 91 050 19 37 (Mar. 16, 1992)Connecticut Superior Court · 1992
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.