green
Positive treatment
1.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Caruso v. Board of Education for Milford, No. Cv99 06 79 57 (Dec. 10, 2001)
See Beach v. Regional School District Number 13, 42 Conn. App. 542 , 554 , 682 A.2d 118 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 939 , 684 A.2d 710 (1996). 8 In that the court has found that the actions of the Milford board of education were discretionary, the board would ordinarily be immune from liability unless the action fell within an exception to the rule that a municipal employee may not be held liable for his discretionary acts.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gooden v. Thomas, No. Cv95 032 28 49 (Jan. 28, 1998)
Accord Beach v. Regional School District Number 13, 42 Conn. App. 542 , 553 , 682 A.2d 118 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 939 , 684 A.2d 710 (1996) (determination of whether official acts or omissions are ministerial or discretionary is a question of fact for the fact finder); Romano v. City of Derby , 42 Conn. App. 624 , 629 , 681 A.2d 387 (1996) (whether the act complained of is discretionary or ministerial is a factual question which depends upon the nature of the act complained of).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hebert v. City of Ansonia, No. Cv-98-0063004s (Jun. 11, 2002)
Compare Kolaniak v. Board of Education , 28 Conn. App. 277 , 281 , 610 A.2d 193 , (1992) (existence of specific bulletin regarding walkway inspection and maintenance precluded defense of governmental immunity) with Beach v. Regional School District , 42 Conn. App. 542 , 554 , 682 A.2d 118 m, cert. denied 239 Conn. 939 , 684 A.2d 710 (1996) (absence of specific directive and testimony that no prescribed policies allowed finding of discretionary function.).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MARTIN HEISE
v.
DONALD J. GRIGGS
v.
DONALD J. GRIGGS
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 7, 1996.
Stephen J. Sinatro, in support of the petition., Leslee B. Hitt, in opposition.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 16177) is denied.