Moore v. Ganim
Connecticut Supreme Court
660 A.2d 742 (1995)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Hamilton Moore (plaintiff), an indigent individual living in Bridgeport, Connecticut, was informed that his general financial-assistance benefits would be terminated. Under Connecticut law, employable individuals were entitled to receive general assistance benefits for only nine out of every 12 months. Moore sued the City of Bridgeport and Bridgeport’s mayor, Joseph Ganim (defendant) (collectively, Bridgeport), arguing that the nine-month limit on general-assistance benefits violated the Connecticut Constitution. Specifically, Moore argued that the Connecticut Constitution imposed an affirmative duty on Connecticut to provide minimum assistance to indigent citizens. The trial court denied Moore’s claim, holding that Bridgeport was not constitutionally required to provide a minimum level of subsistence support to indigent citizens like Moore. Moore appealed directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
Concurrence/Dissent (Peters, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
