Curry v. Civil Service Commission

Connecticut Superior Court

Curry v. Civil Service Commission

5 Conn. Supp. 505, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 22

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1938

DocketFile #53879

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Conn. Supp. 505 (Curry v. Civil Service Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curry v. Civil Service Commission, 5 Conn. Supp. 505, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 22 (Colo. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

WYNNE, J.

Memorandum on motion to expunge and motion to make more specific. The very nature of the present appeal is a sufficient answer to the pending motion. A review of the acts of the Civil Service Commission can come only before a judge of the Superior Court. The proceeding is not judicial but rather one where a judge is designated as the reviewing authority over an administrative municipal commission. In such capacity everything that is here raised, time as well as circumstance, should be before the judge. It would seem that the appellee is in the position of asking to have expunged matter that is directly pertinent to what he seeks in the other motion to make more specific. A judge can be expected to conform to the philosophy underlying enactments [506]*506seeking municipal reform and at the same time protect the individual from a too rigid interpretation that through jealousness might conflict with the very things that civil service contemplates.

The motions are denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WYNNE, J.

Memorandum on motion to expunge and motion to make more specific. The very nature of the present appeal is a sufficient answer to the pending motion. A review of the acts of the Civil Service Commission can come only before a judge of the Superior Court. The proceeding is not judicial but rather one where a judge is designated as the reviewing authority over an administrative municipal commission. In such capacity everything that is here raised, time as well as circumstance, should be before the judge. It would seem that the appellee is in the position of asking to have expunged matter that is directly pertinent to what he seeks in the other motion to make more specific. A judge can be expected to conform to the philosophy underlying enactments [506]*506seeking municipal reform and at the same time protect the individual from a too rigid interpretation that through jealousness might conflict with the very things that civil service contemplates.

The motions are denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Conn. Supp. 505, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-civil-service-commission-connsuperct-1938.