green
Positive treatment
3.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tran v. Woodworth
Summary judgment procedure is espe- cially ill-adapted to negligence cases, where, as here, the ultimate issue in contention involves a mixed ques- tion of fact and law, and requires the trier of fact to determine whether the standard of care was met in a specific situation. . . . [T]he conclusion of negligence is necessarily one of fact . . . .’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Michaud v. Gurney, 168 Conn. 431, 434 , 362 A.2d 857 (1975); see also Busque v. Oakwood Farms Sports Center, Inc., 80 Conn. App. 603, 607 , 836 A.2d 463 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 919 , 8…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tran v. Woodworth
Summary judgment procedure is espe- cially ill-adapted to negligence cases, where, as here, the ultimate issue in contention involves a mixed ques- tion of fact and law, and requires the trier of fact to determine whether the standard of care was met in a specific situation. . . . [T]he conclusion of negligence is necessarily one of fact . . . .’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Michaud v. Gurney, 168 Conn. 431, 434 , 362 A.2d 857 (1975); see also Busque v. Oakwood Farms Sports Center, Inc., 80 Conn. App. 603, 607 , 836 A.2d 463 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 919 , 8…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Washington v. Commissioner of Correction
Torrice v. Commissioner of Correction, 55 Conn. App. 1, 2 , 739 A.2d 270 (1999), aff'g 46 Conn. Sup. 77 , 738 A.2d 1164 (1999); see also King v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn. App. 580, 585-86 , 836 A.2d 466 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 919 , 841 A.2d 1191 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. Commissioner of Correction
See Mirault v. Commissioner of Correction, 82 Conn. App. 520, 523 , 844 A.2d 961 (2004) (presentence confinement days credited to reduce term of confinement under one information cannot be credited again to reduce term of confinement under another information); see also King v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn. App. 580, 587 , 836 A.2d 466 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 919 , 841 A.2d 1191 (2004); Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn. App. 574, 579-80 , 836 A.2d 453 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 918 , 841 A.2d 1191 (2004); Torrice v. Commissioner of Correction, 46 Conn. Sup. 77…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DANIEL R. PEKERA, ADMINISTRATOR (ESTATE OF CHARLENE WALKER)
v.
DAVID PURPORA
v.
DAVID PURPORA
SC 17133.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 11, 2004.
John D. Jessep, in support of the petition., Jeffrey R. Bobbin, in opposition.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 80 Conn. App. 685 (AC 23546), is granted, limited to the following issue:
“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not permitting the plaintiffs to amend their complaint?”