Ducharme v. City of Putnam

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding unconstitutional conclusive presumption under General Statutes [Sup.1969] § 7-433a predecessor statute to § 7-433c, that hypertension and heart disease were causally connected to police officer or firefighter's employment
• explaining when contrasting rebuttable and irrebuttable presumptions that, “[i]n both cases it is a substitute for proof; in the one open to challenge and disproof, and in the other conclusive” [internal quotation marks omitted]
• conclusive presumption in 1969 version of statute violated due process clauses of Connecticut and United States constitutions
• the question of standing does not involve an inquiry into the merits of the case; it merely requires the plaintiff to make allegations of a colorable claim of injury to an interest which is arguably protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).