Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Halpern v. Board of Education

243 Conn. 435 (Conn. 1997)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Halpern v. Board of Education

3 Citing cases

  1. Halpern v. Bristol Bd. of Educ.

    52 F. Supp. 2d 324 (D. Conn. 1999)   Cited 8 times
    Recognizing that a "cause of action for breach of contract accrues when the breach occurs," and stating that, "[i]n the instant case, the injury complained of by the plaintiff occurred . . ., when the Board terminated her employment, allegedly in breach of her employment contract [a]ccordingly, that is when her breach of contract action accrued"

    In addition, the facts and procedural history of this dispute are set forth in several Connecticut Supreme Court opinions. See Lee v. Board of Education of the City of Bristol, 181 Conn. 69, 434 A.2d 333 (1980); Halpern v. Board of Education of the City of Bristol, 231 Conn. 308, 649 A.2d 534 (1994) "( Halpern I)"; Halpern v. Board of Education, 196 Conn. 647, 495 A.2d 264 (1985); Halpern v. Board of Education of the City of Bristol, 243 Conn. 435, 703 A.2d 1144 (1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1842, 140 L.Ed.2d 1092 (1998) ("Halpern II"). On August 21, 1974, the defendant Bristol Board of Education (hereinafter "the Board"), conducted a hearing pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. § 10-151(b) to determine whether to terminate the teaching contract of the plaintiff, Elinor Halpern, after eight years of teaching in the Bristol school system.

  2. Rafalowski v. Old County Road, Inc.

    245 Conn. 504 (Conn. 1998)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the reasoning of the trial court to hold that the alleged mismanagement of a condominium association is not within the scope of Connecticut's UTPA

    It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Halpern v. Board of Education, 243 Conn. 435, 438, 703 A.2d 1144 (1997); Molnar v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 239 Conn. 233, 235, 685 A.2d 1107 (1996).

  3. A. Aiudi Sons v. Plainville Planning

    2000 Ct. Sup. 5553 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000)

    As the court in Transportation General, Inc. v. Dept. of Insurance, 236 Conn. 75, 76 (1996) stated: "To overcome the presumption of impartiality that attends administrative determinations, a plaintiff must demonstrate either actual bias or the existence of circumstances indicating `a probability of . . . bias too high to be constitutionally tolerable. . . .'" (Citations omitted.) See also Emonds v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., 49 Conn. App. 374, 377 (1998) (burden on plaintiff to show actual, not mere potential, bias); Halpern v. Board of Education, 45 Conn. Sup. 171, 191, aff'd, 243 Conn. 435 (1997) (requiring actual bias). In addition, General Statutes § 4-183 (j) requires the court to affirm the decision appealed from unless the court finds that "substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings . . . conclusions, or decisions are. (3) made upon unlawful procedure. . . .