Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities Ex Rel. Arnold v. Forvil, 25 A.3d 632 (2011)

Citation: Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities Ex Rel. Arnold v. Forvil, 25 A.3d 632 (2011)
Parent Document: Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities Ex Rel. Arnold v. Forvil, 25 A.3d 632 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2011-08-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2318907/commission-on-human-rights-oppo... ↗

Full Text

771 chars

On appeal, the defendants contend that: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render the judgment because it was untimely rendered; (2) the trial court improperly considered a guarantee to be a lawful source of income within the meaning of the housing discrimination statutes; (3) the trial court improperly concluded that a guarantee’s validity is irrelevant to a claim of discrimination under § 46a-64c; (4) the compensatory damages to the relators were excessive; (6) the trial court improperly denied the defendants’ motion to compel the commission to produce certain documents; (6) § 46a-64c is unconstitutionally vague; and (7) requiring landlords to accept a guarantee in lieu of a cash security deposit denies equal protection of the law to some landlords. 6

Other Sections in This Document (123)

Full Text