green
Positive treatment
5.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mark v. Neundorf
This court has repeatedly stated the proposition that “[i]t is the substance of a motion . . . that governs its outcome, rather than how it is characterized in the title given to it by the movant.” State v. Taylor, 91 Conn. App. 788, 792 , 882 A2d 682 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 928 , 889 A.2d 819 (2005); see Drahan v. Board of Education, 42 Conn. App. 480, 489 , 680 A.2d 316 (proposition that motion is to be decided on basis of substance rather than on form or label affixed to motion), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996). 6 The trial court did not expressly state that its rea…
discussed
Cited "see"
Bijur v. Bijur
See Drahan v. Board of Education, 42 Conn. App. 480, 489 , 680 A.2d 316 (when case requires court to determine nature of pleading, court not required to accept precise label affixed to that pleading), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Aggen
See Drahan v. Board of Education, 42 Conn. App. 480, 489 , 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tisdale v. Riverside Cemetery Ass'n
See Drahan v. Board of Education, 42 Conn. App. 480, 489 , 680 A.2d 316 (when case requires court to determine nature of pleading filed by party, courts not required to accept precise label affixed to that pleading by moving party), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Lewczyk v. Connecticut Dph, No. Cv 00-0596677 (Dec. 10, 2002)
See Drahan v. Board of Education , 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rome v. Album
The court did have the authority to treat the defendant’s motion to clarify as a motion to open and to grant the defendant’s requested relief where the defendant’s motion (1) came within the four month period established by § 52-212a; (2) put the plaintiff on notice as to the effect of the relief requested despite the label affixed to the motion; see Drahan v. Board of Education, 42 Conn. App. 480, 489 , 680 A.2d 316 (“[w]hen a case requires this court to determine the nature of a pleading filed by a party, we are not required to accept the label affixed to that pleading by the party�…
cited
Cited "see"
New Milford S.B. v. Jajer, No. Cv 92-0061073 (Jan. 2, 2001)
See Drahan v. Board of Education , 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Labroad v. McEleney, No. Cv97-0482695s (May 4, 2000)
See Drahan v. Board of Education, 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996); see also Boucher Agency, Inc. v. Zimmer, 160 Conn. 404 , 409 , 279 A.2d 540 (1971).
cited
Cited "see"
Palmieri v. Lee, No. 405641 (Nov. 24, 1999)
See Drahan v. Board of Education , 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Bennett v. Lindsay, No. 389401 (Jul. 6, 1999)
See Drahan v. Board of Education, 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Orta v. Rivera, No. 408173 (Nov. 10, 1998)
See Drahan v. Board of Education , 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Marinaccio v. Zaczynski, No. Cv 96 0565991 (May 14, 1998)
Boucher Agency, Inc. v. Zimmer, 160 Conn. 404 , 409 , 279 A.2d 540 (1971); see Drahan v. Board of Education, 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996); Camp v. Chase, 39 Conn. Sup. 264 , 267 n. 1, 476 A.2d 1087 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Antonio A. v. Commissioner of Correction
A court has broad discretion to treat a motion for clarifi- cation of a judgment or a motion to reargue a judgment as a motion to open and modify the judgment . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Silver v. Silver, 200 Conn. App. 505, 520 , 238 A.3d 823 , cert. denied, 335 Conn. 973 , 240 A.3d 1055 (2020); see also Drahan v. Board of Education, 42 Conn. App. 480, 489 , 680 A.2d 316 (‘‘[w]hen a case requires this court to determine the nature of a pleading filed by a party, we are not required to accept the label affixed to that pleading by the party’’), cert. denied, 239 Co…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chiccarello v. Ghallilli, No. Cv00-034 03 57 S (Jun. 10, 2002)
"Connecticut courts have permitted the use of the motion for summary judgment to contest the legal sufficiency of a complaint, even though the sufficiency is more appropriately challenged by a motion to strike." Orr v. Hartford Accident Indemnity , Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. 482838 (July 12, 1999, Robinson, J. ) ( 25 Conn.L.Rptr. 122 ); see also Drahan v. Board of Education , 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blake v. Vanu, No. Cv97 034 24 00 S (Jan. 7, 2000)
See, e.g., Drahan v. Board of Education , CT Page 275 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 (1996), cert. denied 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996); Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 , 630 A.2d 624 (1993), cert denied 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Satti v. Code Enforcement Committee, No. 544395 (Jun. 8, 1998)
See also Drahan v. Board of Education, 42 Conn. App. 480 , 489 , 680 A.2d 316 (1996), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1997).
CHARLES G. GIBSON
v.
JOHN A. CAPANO
v.
JOHN A. CAPANO
SC 15514.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 18, 1996.
Edward J. Holahan, Jr., in support of the petition., Douglas M. Cott, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 41 Conn. App. 548 (AC 13625), is granted, limited to the following issue:
“In order to impose liability on a seller of real estate for innocent misrepresentation, is specialized knowledge by the seller required?”
[*903] Decided September 18, 1996 Edward J. Holahan, Jr., in support of the petition. Douglas M. Cott, in opposition.