green
Positive treatment
8.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Distinguished
Munn v. Hotchkiss School
(2×)
Malloy v. Town of Colchester, 85 Conn.App. 627, 633-34 , 858 A.2d 813 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 907 , 863 A.2d 698 (2004) (explaining that in many cases "the question of legal causation is practically indistinguishable from an analysis of the extent of the tortfeasor’s duty to the plaintiff.” (citations and quotations omitted)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mariculture Products Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
Id., 718.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dunn v. Northeast Helicopters Flight Services, L.L.C.
We decline to review that claim in light of our disposition of this appeal. ‘‘The concept of setoff allows [parties] that owe each other money to apply their mutual debts against each other, thus avoiding the absurdity of making A pay B when B in fact owes A.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mariculture Products Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 84 Conn. App. 688, 703 , 854 A.2d 1100 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 905 , 863 A.2d 698 (2004); see id. (explaining that defendant will plead right of setoff ‘‘either to reduce the plaintiff’s recovery, or to defeat it…
discussed
Cited "see"
Pellet v. Keller Williams Realty Corp.
(2×)
See Malloy v. Colchester , 85 Conn.App. 627 , 632, 858 A.2d 813 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 907 , 863 A.2d 698 (2004), citing Arnone v. Enfield , 79 Conn.App. 501 , 505-506, 831 A.2d 260 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 804 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lawrence v. Weiner
It is well established that ‘‘[i]n the absence of any disputed facts pertaining to jurisdiction, a court is not obligated to hold an evidentiary hearing before dismiss- ing an action for lack of jurisdiction.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) Weihing v. Dodsworth, 100 Conn. App. 29, 39 , 917 A.2d 53 (2007); accord West Hartford v. Murtha Cullina, LLP, 85 Conn. App. 15, 25 , 857 A.2d 354 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 907 , 863 A.2d 700 (2004); Pinchbeck v. Dept. of Public Health, 65 Conn. App. 201, 209 , 782 A.2d 242 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 928 , 783 A.2d 1029 (2001); see also Weins…
discussed
Cited "see"
McDermott v. State
(2×)
See Malloy v. Colchester, 85 Conn. App. 627, 634 , 858 A.2d 813 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 907 , 863 A.2d 698 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
Valentin v. Commissioner of Correction
See Batts v. Commissioner of Correction, 85 Conn. App. 723, 728 , 858 A.2d 856 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 907 , 863 A.2d 697 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gurguis v. Frankel
(2×)
See Malloy v. Colchester, 85 Conn. App. 627, 633 , 858 A.2d 813 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 907 , 863 A.2d 698 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
Zirinsky v. Zirinsky
See Mariculture Products Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 84 Conn. App. 688, 698 , 854 A.2d 1100 , cert, denied, 272 Conn. 905 , 863 A.2d 698 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sequeiro v. Torrington
(2×)
See, e.g., Malloy v. Colchester, 85 Conn. App. 627, 633 , 858 A.2d 813 (“[b]ecause actual causation, in theory, is virtually limitless, the legal construct of proximate cause serves to establish how far down the causal continuum tortfeasors will be held liable for the consequences of their actions” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 907 , 863 A.2d 698 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cinotti v. Divers
Whether to grant or to deny such motions clearly involves discre- tion, and a reviewing court should not disturb those decisions, unless there has been an abuse of that discre- tion, absent a showing that a specific constitutional right would be infringed.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Watrous v. Watrous, 108 Conn. App. 813 , 827– 28, 949 A.2d 557 (2008); see also West Hartford v. Mur- tha Cullina, LLP, 85 Conn. App. 15, 26 , 857 A.2d 354 (‘‘we review a [trial court’s] denial of a motion for a continuance to obtain discovery under an abuse of dis- cretion standard’’), c…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Crespo v. Commissioner of Correction
See, e.g., Batts v. Commissioner of Correction, 85 Conn. App. 723, 728 , 858 A.2d 856 (“[t]he court, in its role as finder of fact, [is] the sole arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to afford their testimony”), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 907 , 863 A.2d 697 (2004). 6 See footnote 2 of this opinion for the text of § 52-470 (b). 7 It is axiomatic that decisions of trial strategy and tactics rest with the attorney.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Weihing v. Dodsworth
This court has stated: “In the absence of any disputed facts pertaining to jurisdiction, a court is not obligated to hold an evidentiary hearing before dismissing an action for lack of jurisdiction.” Pinchbeck v. Dept. of Public Health, 65 Conn. App. 201, 209 , 782 A.2d 242 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 928 , 783 A.2d 1029 (2001); see also West Hartford v. Murtha Cullina, LLP, 85 Conn. App. 15, 25 , 857 A.2d 354 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 907 , 863 A.2d 700 (2004); Rosengarten v. Downes, 71 Conn. App. 372, 376 , 802 A.2d 170 , cert. granted on other grounds, 261 Conn. 936 , 806 A.2d 1066 (2002)…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB v. Charles
Without the necessary factual and legal conclusions furnished by the trial court, either on its own or in response to a proper motion for articulation, any decision made by us . . . would be entirely speculative.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Silvermine Investors, LLC v. Call Center Technologies, Inc., 81 Conn. App. 701, 709-10 , 841 A.2d 695 (2004); see also Mariculture Products Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London, 84 Conn. App. 688, 702 , 854 A.2d 1100 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 905 , 863 A.2d 698 (2004).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Alfano v. Randy's Wooster Street Pizza Shop II, Inc.
See, e.g., Mariculture Products Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 84 Conn. App. 688, 696 , 854 A.2d 1100 , cert. denied, 272 Conn. 905 , 863 A.2d 698 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James M. MALLOY
v.
TOWN OF COLCHESTER et al.
v.
TOWN OF COLCHESTER et al.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 8, 2004.
Published
William F. Gallagher and Mark A. Balaban, Middletown, in support of the petition.
Jay T. DonFrancisco, Hartford, in opposition.
The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 85 Conn.App. 627, 858 A.2d 813 (2004), is denied.