Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)

Citation: Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)
Parent Document: Blinkoff v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 20 A.3d 1272 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2011-06-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2551132/blinkoff-v-commission-on-human-... ↗

Full Text

838 chars

inter alia, that the referee had failed to consider Iffland Lumber Company (Iffland) as a comparator. She attached exhibits to her motion regarding the nature of Iffland’s business as proof of her claim that Iffland was similarly situated. In its decision on reconsideration, the referee declined to consider the attachments because they had not been offered into evidence at the hearing. Then, on the basis of its reconsideration of the record, the referee articulated that “there was conflicting and inconclusive testimony by the witnesses as to the nature of Iffland’s business, whether it needed a special exception permit and whether the city had ever issued Iffland a cease and desist order for operating without a permit.” The referee concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove that Iffland was a similarly situated business.

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text