Klingeman v. MacKay, 597 A.2d 333 (Conn. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Klingeman v. MacKay, 597 A.2d 333 (Conn. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: St. George v. Gordon (conn, 2003-07-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" St. George v. Gordon
Conn. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
But that is entirely different from the state’s sovereign immunity from suit . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Murphy v. Ives, supra, 151 Conn. 264 ; accord Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, 235 Conn. 1, 26 , 664 A.2d 719 (1995); see generally Giannitti v. Stamford, 25 Conn. App. 67, 78-79 , 593 A.2d 140 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 918 , 597 A.2d 333 (1991).
discussed Cited "see" Cardona v. Negron
Conn. App. Ct. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
The gravamen of the state’s claim is not that the family support magistrate erroneously exercised its jurisdiction; see Hill v. Hill, 25 Conn. App. 452, 455-56 , 594 A.2d 1041 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 917 , 597 A.2d 333 (1991); but, rather, that the magistrate lacked the authority to act.
discussed Cited "see" Ortiz v. City of Bridgeport, No. Cv93 30 46 43 S (Mar. 17, 1995)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
In a word, `"[i]nstructions should not be so drawn as to direct the attention of the jury too prominently to the facts in the testimony on one side of the case, while sinking out of view, or passing lightly over portions of the testimony on the other side which deserve equal attention."'" Bruneau v. Quick, supra. 187 Conn. 627 -628; see Giannitti v. Stamford, 25 Conn. App. 67 , 73 , 593 A.2d 140 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 918 , 597 A.2d 333 (1991).
cited Cited "see" Burns v. Board of Education
Conn. App. Ct. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Giannitti v. Stamford, 25 Conn. App. 67, 79 , 593 A.2d 140 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 918 , 597 A.2d 333 (1991), and Kolaniak v. Board of Education, 28 Conn. App. 277, 280 , 610 A.2d 193 (1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Richards v. Richards
Conn. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Celanese Fiber v. Pic Yarns, Inc., 184 Conn. 461, 466 , 440 A.2d 159 (1981); Kenworthy v. Kenworthy, 180 Conn. 129, 131 , 429 A.2d 837 (1980); see also Sparaco v. Tenney, 175 Conn. 436, 437-38 , 399 A.2d 1261 (1978).” Hill v. Hill, 25 Conn. App. 452, 454-55 , 594 A.2d 1041 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 917 , 597 A.2d 333 (1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cohen v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, No. 365908 (Aug. 31, 2000)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Instructions should not be so drawn as to direct the attention of the jury too prominently to the facts in the testimony on one side of the case, while sinking out of view, or passing lightly over, portions of the testimony on the other side, which deserve equal attention. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kevin Roche-John Dinkeloo Associates v. New Haven, 205 Conn. 741 , 745-46 , 535 A.2d 1287 (1988); see also Giannitti v. Stamford, 25 Conn. App. 67 , 73-74 , 593 A.2d 140 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 918 , 597 A.2d 333 (1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Cintron
Conn. App. Ct. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
In deciding a motion to view the scene “[t]he court should consider whether viewing the scene is necessary or important so that the jury may clearly understand the issues and properly apply the evidence.” State v. Cato, supra, 21 Conn. App. 410 ; see also Giannitti v. Stamford, 25 Conn. App. 67, 71-72 , 593 A.2d 140 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 918 , 597 A.2d 333 (1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Weiss v. Greenwich Housing Authority, Inc., No. Cv93-0131151 (Jan. 5, 1995)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the directed verdict because "[i]n the absence of such evidence, the jury could not conclude that there was or was not an intention to mislead, or that the defendant was or was not in fact misled by the inaccuracy of the time of the accident as alleged in the notice." Id. ; see also Giannitti v. City of Stamford , 25 Conn. App. 67 , 75-76 , 593 A.2d 140 , Cert. denied 220 Conn. 918 , 597 A.2d 333 (1991) (holding that "[s]ection § 13a-149 contains a savings clause that provides that notice given under the statute will not be invalidated because of inac…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Laura D. Klingeman, Administratrix (Estate of Todd Klingeman)
v.
William MacKay
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 19, 1991.
597 A.2d 333
Thomas J. Weihing, in support of the petition., Thomas G. Parisot and Paul E. Pollock, in opposition.
Published

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 25 Conn. App. 217, is denied.