issued without prior authorization by the court and the replevin did not contain the requisite, statutory notice in violation of Conn.Gen.Stat. 52-278e. ATI argues that the mere allegation of a deprivation of a constitutional right is sufficient to trigger a finding of irreparable harm. Mitchell v. Cuomo, 748 F.2d 804, 806 (2d Cir.1984) (affirming the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction to an inmate who alleged a violation of the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment); Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482 (2d Cir.1996) (affirming di , 1063 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (requiring movant to establish irreparable harm in an action alleging violation of First Amendment); see also Public Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Town of W. Newbury, 835 F.2d 380, 382 (1st Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). “ ‘[T]he cases where courts have held that a
recognizing that the idea bars an award of attorneys fees for work performed subsequent to a settlement offer of all requested relief recognizing the courts obligation to assume all factual allegations to be true and to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor recognizing that admission is important to the evaluation of witness credibility recognizing that not all allegations of constitutional viola tions are sufficiently important to be irremediable by subsequent relief recognizing ac tions of nominally private entities are attributable to the state under certain circumstances