Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Stamford v. Kovac

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 7, 1993No. 14644Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBerdon, J.

I agree that the trial court has the authority to issue a temporary mandatory injunction. See Doe v. Maher, 40 Conn. Sup. 394, 400, 515 A.2d 134 (1986) (in reciting the chronology of medicaid abortion litigation, the court refers to the entry of “a temporary mandatory injunction in favor of the [plaintiff] classes [poor women and certain physicians] ordering the defendants [state treasurer and commissioner of income maintenance] to pay, under the medicaid program, for the costs of all therapeutic abortions whether or not the life of the woman was endangered by carrying the fetus to term”).

I…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. Connecticut Building Wrecking Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
  2. Cioffoletti v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  3. Doe v. MaherConnecticut Superior Court · 1986
  4. Mario v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  5. Northeastern Gas Transmission Co. v. BrushSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951

1 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