DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 46a-64c

Citation
Section 46a-64c
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... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (123)

Full Text

549 chars 
nor discuss the application of the law of vagueness to the facts of this case. The defendants also do not point to any authority for the proposition that a statute is per se vague when state agencies disagree on its interpretation. In the absence of these basic components of a claim against a statute’s constitutionality, we conclude that the defendants have inadequately briefed the issue of the statute’s vagueness. Accordingly, we will not address the claim. See Hartford/Windsor Healthcare Properties, LLC v. Hartford, supra, 298 Conn. 194 n.4;