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

708 chars

suggesting that the city bought gravel from a vendor whose permit had lapsed, the referee reasonably distinguished this vendor from the plaintiff on the ground that the vendor’s application was pending at the time and had only lapsed for a week, whereas the plaintiff had waited five months after the expiration of her permit to file an application for renewal. Additionally, the record reflects that, following the renewal of her permit, the plaintiff was either unable or unwilling to bid on the city’s requests for product. The court, therefore, did not err in concluding that the referee reasonably determined on the basis of substantial evidence that the city did not engage in a retaliatory boycott. II

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text