green
Positive treatment
1.7 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wheeler v. Beachcroft
Restaurant, Inc. v. Windsor, 189 Conn. 153, 161 , 454 A.2d 1258 (1983); see also Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, Massachusetts v. Levesque, 88 Conn. App. 661, 671 , 870 A.2d 1116 (collateral estoppel unavailable in action because ‘‘the issues litigated in [the] action are not identical to those actually litigated in the prior action’’), cert. denied, 274 Conn. 907 , 908, 876 A.2d 1200 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital
The preclusive effect of these two doctrines, however, is substantially different. [Cjlaim preclusion prevents a litigant from reasserting a claim that has already been decided on the merits. . . . [I]ssue preclusion prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in apiior suit.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Advest, Inc. v. Wachtel, 235 Conn. 559, 565-66 , 668 A.2d 367 (1995); see also Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, Massachusetts v. Levesque, 88 Conn. App. 661, 671 , 870 A.2d 1116 , cert. denied, 274 Conn. 907 , 908, 876 A.2d 1…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MARILYN S. MATTHEWS
v.
NAGY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
v.
NAGY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 15, 2005.
Paul E. Pollock, in support of the petition., Kevin J. Gumpper, in opposition.
Published
The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 88 Conn. App. 787 (AC 24560), is denied.