Day v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 551 A.2d 755 (Conn. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Day v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 551 A.2d 755 (Conn. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
50 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jepsen v. Camassar (connappct, 2020-02-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Jepsen v. Camassar
Conn. App. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Grady v. Schmitz, 16 Conn. App. 292, 294 , 547 A.2d 563 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 822 , 551 A.2d 755 (1988).
cited Cited "see" Edwards v. Novartis Consumer Hth., No. (X06) Cv-01-0167425 S (Feb. 14, 2003)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Day v. General Electric Credit Corp. , 15 Conn. App. 677 , 684 , 546 A.2d 315 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 819 , 551 A.2d 755 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" Suh v. Yale University, No. Cv-95-0377911 S (Feb. 9, 2000)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
CT Page 1784 "Bifurcation of trial proceedings lies solely within the discretion of the trial court; see Day v. General Electric Credit Corp. , 15 Conn. App. 677 , 689 , 546 A.2d 315 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 819 , 551 A.2d 755 (1988); In re Jose C. , 11 Conn. App. 507 , 508 , 527 A.2d 1239 (1987); and appellate review is limited to a determination of whether that discretion has been abused.
discussed Cited "see" O'Shea v. Mignone
Conn. App. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
Accordingly, the trial court instructed the jury, without objection, that it had “decided to separate the issue of liability in this case from the issue of damages.” “Bifurcation of trial proceedings lies solely within the discretion of the trial court; see Day v. General Electric Credit Corp., 15 Conn. App. 677, 689 , 546 A.2d 315 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 819 , 551 A.2d 755 (1988); In re Jose C., 11 Conn. App. 507, 508 , 527 A.2d 1239 (1987); and appellate review is limited to a determination of whether that discretion has been abused.
discussed Cited "see" Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
Conn. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
Bifurcation of trial proceedings lies solely within the discretion of the trial court; see Day v. General Electric Credit Corp., 15 Conn. App. 677, 689 , 546 A.2d 315 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 819 , 551 A.2d 755 (1988); In re Jose C., 11 Conn. App. 507, 508 , 527 A.2d 1239 (1987); and appellate review is limited to a determination of whether that discretion has been abused.
cited Cited "see" L & G Associates, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
Conn. App. Ct. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Grady v. Schmitz, 16 Conn. App. 292, 296 , 547 A.2d 563 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 822 , 551 A.2d 755 (1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Harp v. King
Conn. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 703 (Tenn. 2002); see also Day v. General Electric Credit Corp., 15 Conn. App. 677, 684 , 546 A.2d 315 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 819 , 551 A.2d 755 (1988) (applying intracorporate conspiracy doctrine).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Steve Day
v.
General Electric Credit Corporation
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 26, 1988.
551 A.2d 755
Edward Maum Sheehy and Ronald D. Williams, in support of the petition., John S. McGeeney and Lawrence W. Kanaga, in opposition.
Published

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 15 Conn. App. 677, is denied.

Edward Maum Sheehy and Ronald D. Williams, in support of the petition. John S. McGeeney and Lawrence W. Kanaga, in opposition. Decided October 26, 1988