green
Positive treatment
1.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Pasik v. United Technologies Corp., No. Cv94 31 33 96 S (Aug. 7, 2002)
See Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp ., 40 Conn. App. 725 , 730 , 673 A.2d 573 , cert. denied , 237 Conn. 913 , 675 A.2d 885 (1996); Firgeleski v. Hubbell, Inc ., D.N.
discussed
Cited "see"
Donovan v. Neri, No. Cv97-0140940s (Apr. 24, 2002)
See Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 229 Conn. 99 , 107 , 639 A.2d 507 (1994). "[S]ummary judgment is ordinarily inappropriate where an individual's intent and state of mind are implicated." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp., 40 Conn. App. 725 , 731 , 673 A.2d 575 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 913 , 675 A.2d 885 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
McGuire v. Derby Savings Bank, No. Cv97-0056878s (Apr. 24, 2002)
See Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 229 Conn. 99 , 107 , 639 A.2d 507 (1994). "[S]ummary judgment is ordinarily inappropriate where an individual's intent and state of mind are implicated." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp., 40 Conn. App. 725 , 731 , 673 A.2d 575 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 913 , 675 A.2d 885 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Lord v. Lord
See Schult v. Schult, 40 Conn. App. 675 , 687 n.10, 672 A.2d 959 , cert. granted on other grounds, 237 Conn. 912 , 675 A.2d 885 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jewett v. General Dynamics Corp., No. 530943 (May 1, 1997)
Compare Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp., 40 Conn. App. 725 , 673 A.2d 573 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 913 , 675 A.2d 885 (1996) (where court held that, because plaintiff presented insufficient evidence that defendant impliedly contracted to implement its progressive disciplinary measures with the plaintiff in every situation where the plaintiff allegedly performed his job inadequately, trial court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CHERYL SCHULT
v.
JEFFREY SCOT SCHULT
v.
JEFFREY SCOT SCHULT
SC 15418.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
May 9, 1996.
Elizabeth Gleason, in support of the petition., John J. Bennett and Colette Griffin, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
The petition by the guardian ad litem for the minor child for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 40 Conn. App. 675 (AC 13482), is granted, limited to the following issue:
“In an action for dissolution of a marriage, if a child is represented by both a guardian ad litem and an attorney,[*913] does the attorney for the child have the authority to express an opinion on behalf of the child that differs from the opinion of the guardian ad litem?”The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15418. Elizabeth Gleason, in support of the petition. John J. Bennett and Colette Griffin, in opposition. Decided May 9, 1996