Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Citation
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Parent Document
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1988-07-05
Other Sections in This Document (43)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
Full Text
1,828 charsIn the alternative, the plaintiff argues that an agency relationship existed for a particular purpose, i.e., providing police protection. The plaintiff points to two factors: the cooperation agreement between the two parties and the fact that the defendant city hired and placed six special police officers in the BHA’s projects. This claim is not persuasive. In the cooperation agreement, the city agreed to furnish to the authority’s housing project its “normal municipal services,” including police protection. This “normal” level of police protection is no different from that offered to all other city residents. The agreement did not specify patrol levels or any other details of the protection offered. Therefore the level of protection offered was within the discretionary authority of the city and its representatives. By the plaintiff’s logic, the city would have an agency relationship with every resident of Bridgeport. This is *187untenable and we conclude that the cooperation agreement did not form the basis of an agency relationship between the city and the BHA. The plaintiff also points to the hiring of six police officers to patrol the BHA’s projects to establish an agency relationship for a particular purpose. As explained earlier in this opinion, the plaintiff formerly and incorrectly believed that the city owned the Marina Apartments housing project. The six officers hired by the city “mostly remained” at Father Panik Village, another housing project that is separate and distinct from the Marina Apartments housing project. Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the city’s actions in another housing project do not establish an agency relationship between the city and the BHA for any purpose in the project involved in this case. There is no error. In this opinion the other justices concurred.