Georgia v. Freedom of Information Comm., No. Cv 00-0505895 S (Sep. 24, 2001)

Connecticut Superior Court

Georgia v. Freedom of Information Comm., No. Cv 00-0505895 S (Sep. 24, 2001)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13399

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 24, 2001

DocketNo. CV 00-0505895 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13399 (Georgia v. Freedom of Information Comm., No. Cv 00-0505895 S (Sep. 24, 2001)) 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

Georgia v. Freedom of Information Comm., No. Cv 00-0505895 S (Sep. 24, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13399 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Memorandum of Decision The plaintiff appeals from the decision of the Freedom of Information Commission finding that an investigatory procedure that took place on May 11, 2000 concerning her complaint of sexual harassment by a Bridgeport firefighter consisted of an "administrative or staff meeting of a single-member public agency" and therefore did not constitute a "meeting" that should have been open to the public within the meaning of General Statutes §§ 1-200 (2) and 1-225 (a). Insofar as the finding in question is one of fact, there is substantial evidence to support it. See Record at 52-53, 82-83, 86-88. Insofar as the Commission's finding was a conclusion of law, this case is controlled by Dortenzio v. Freedom ofInformation Commission, 48 Conn. App. 424, 435-36, 710 A.2d 801 (1998).

The appeal is dismissed.

CARL J. SCHUMAN JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Memorandum of Decision The plaintiff appeals from the decision of the Freedom of Information Commission finding that an investigatory procedure that took place on May 11, 2000 concerning her complaint of sexual harassment by a Bridgeport firefighter consisted of an "administrative or staff meeting of a single-member public agency" and therefore did not constitute a "meeting" that should have been open to the public within the meaning of General Statutes §§ 1-200 (2) and 1-225 (a). Insofar as the finding in question is one of fact, there is substantial evidence to support it. See Record at 52-53, 82-83, 86-88. Insofar as the Commission's finding was a conclusion of law, this case is controlled by Dortenzio v. Freedom ofInformation Commission, 48 Conn. App. 424, 435-36, 710 A.2d 801 (1998).

The appeal is dismissed.

CARL J. SCHUMAN JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-v-freedom-of-information-comm-no-cv-00-0505895-s-sep-24-connsuperct-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack