Hartford Cas. Ins. v. Litchfield Mut. Fire Ins., 845 A.2d 414 (Conn. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Hartford Cas. Ins. v. Litchfield Mut. Fire Ins., 845 A.2d 414 (Conn. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. ERNESTO P. (connappct, 2012-05-01)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" State v. ERNESTO P.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Glasper, 81 Conn. App. 367, 375 , 840 A.2d 48 (in considering evidence jury not required to leave common sense at courtroom door), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 913 , *224 845 A.2d 415 (2004).
cited Cited "see" State v. Nixon
Conn. App. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Crudup, 81 Conn. App. 248, 252 , 838 A.2d 1053 , cert. denied, 268 Conn. 913 , 845 A.2d 415 (2004).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Stavrakis
Conn. App. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Glasper, 81 Conn. App. 367, 372-75 , 840 A.2d 48 (object used to strike victim over head considered dangerous instrument), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 913 , 845 A.2d 415 (2004); State v. Hurdle, 85 Conn. App. 128, 142 , 856 A.2d 493 (cane used to strike victim over head considered dangerous instrument), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 942 , 861 A.2d 516 (2004); State v. Ramos, 70 Conn. App. 855, 862 , 800 A.2d 631 (2002) (hammer used to strike victim over head considered dangerous instrument), rev’d on other grounds, 271 Conn. 785 , 860 A.2d 249 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
LITCHFIELD MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
SC 17147.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 16, 2004.
845 A.2d 414
Philip F. von Kuhn, in support of the cross petition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The plaintiffs’ cross petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 80 Conn. App. 364 (AC 23896), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant had no duty to defend the insured Mitch Wylie?”