Sakon v. Town of Glastonbury, 965 A.2d 554 (Conn. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Sakon v. Town of Glastonbury, 965 A.2d 554 (Conn. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (36 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: DiNuzzo v. Dan Perkins Chevrolet Geo, Inc. (conn, 2009-11-10)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" DiNuzzo v. Dan Perkins Chevrolet Geo, Inc.
Conn. · 2009 · signal: accord · confidence high
E.g., Blakeslee v. Platt Bros. & Co., 279 Conn. 239, 243-44 , 902 A.2d 620 (2006). “[I]n Connecticut traditional concepts of proximate cause constitute the rule for determining . . . causation [in workers’ compensation cases].” McDonough v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 204 Conn. 104, 118 , 527 A.2d 664 (1987); accord Solonick v. Electric Boat Corp., 111 Conn. App. 793, 799 , 961 *142 A.2d 470 (2008) (same), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 916 , 965 A.2d 555 (2009). “[T]he test of proximate cause is whether the defendant’s conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiffs inju…
discussed Cited "see" LaBossiere v. Jones (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sakon v. Glastonbury, 111 Conn. App. 242, 258 , 958 A.2d 801 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 916 , 965 A.2d 554 (2009).
cited Cited "see" State v. JAMES N.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Osimanti, 111 Conn. App. 700, 716 , 962 A.2d 129 (2008), cert. granted on other grounds, 290 Conn. 914 , 965 A.2d 554 (2009).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Coughlin v. Stamford Fire Dept.
Conn. · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Solonick v. Electric Boat Corp., 111 Conn. App. 793 , 799–800, 961 A.2d 470 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 916 , 965 A.2d 555 (2009). 6 In Holston, this court explained that, for purposes of establishing a new claim, the use of the disjunctive term ‘‘or’’ in § 7-433c when determining benefit eligibility for a claimant who suffers a disability caused by hyperten- sion or heart disease ‘‘indicates that the legislature intended for hypertension and heart disease to be treated as two separate diseases . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Holston v. New Haven…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Alan SAKON
v.
TOWN OF GLASTONBURY.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 19, 2009.
965 A.2d 554
Published

John Alan Sakon, pro se, in support of the petition.

Beth Bryan Critton, Hartford, in opposition.

The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 111[*555] Conn.App. 242, 958 A.2d 801 (2008), is denied.