Capozzi v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins., 632 A.2d 702 (Conn. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Capozzi v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins., 632 A.2d 702 (Conn. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Gura (connappct, 1997-09-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see" State v. Gura
Conn. App. Ct. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Kowal, 31 Conn. App. 669, 672 , 626 A.2d 822 , cert. denied, 227 Conn. 923 , 632 A.2d 702 (1993).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Czyzewski
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Kowal, 31 Conn. App. 669, 672-73 , 626 A.2d 822 , cert. denied, 227 Conn. 923 , 632 A.2d 702 (1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Lipscomb
Conn. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
Therefore, “[a]n investigative stop can be appropriate even where the police have not observed a violation because a reasonable and articulable suspicion can arise from conduct that alone is not criminal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Price-Crowley v. Kozlowski, 49 Conn. App. 481, 485 , 714 A.2d 719 (1998); see also State v. Kowal, 31 Conn. App. 669, 672 , 626 A.2d 822 , cert. denied, 227 Conn. 923 , 632 A.2d 702 (1993); State v. Harrison, 30 Conn. App. 108, 113 , 618 A.2d 1381 , aff'd, 228 Conn. 758 , 638 A.2d 601 (1994).
George M. Capozzi
v.
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
SC 14844.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 5, 1993.
632 A.2d 702
William I. Garfinkel, in support of the petition., James E. Kernan, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 250 (AC 11477), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Whether the Appellate Court correctly held that there was substantial evidence to support the arbitrators’ conclusion that when the plaintiff was injured he was not operating a ‘replacement vehicle’ and that he was therefore not covered by the uninsured motorist provisions of the two insurance policies issued by the defendant?”