of conduct or policy put forth by the State.” Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 844, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (White, J., concurring). In the present ease, the amended complaint does not allege that the State of Connecticut, either through a regulation or policy, exercised coercive power or significantly encouraged Yale to adopt its housing policy or to render specific housing decisions. At most, the amended complaint alleges that two state officials sit, merely by virtue of their office, on Yale’s governing board and that Yale has a “300-year history of partnership with the Colony and State of Connecticut....” Similar to the complaint in Blum, 457 U.S. 991, 102 S.Ct. 2777, the amended complaint “seeks to hold state officials liable for the actions of private parties.... ” Id. at 1003, 102 S.Ct. 2777 (<HOLDING>). These allegations alone, however, do not
holding that the state police is a state agency holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts holding that rookerfeldman does not apply to state administrative decisions holding that there was no state action where the decisions to discharge the petitioners were not compelled or even influenced by any state regulation holding that although the state regulated and subsidized the nursing homes private parties not state officials made the administrative decisions therefore the decisions could not be treated as state action