Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Muro, 868 A.2d 747 (Conn. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Muro, 868 A.2d 747 (Conn. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Megos v. Ranta (connappct, 2018-02-06)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Megos v. Ranta
Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See LaBow v. LaBow , 85 Conn. App. 746 , 750, 858 A.2d 882 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906 , 868 A.2d 747 (2005).
cited Cited "see" PMG Land Associates, L.P. v. Harbour Landing Condominium Ass'n
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See LaBow v. LaBow, 85 Conn. App. 746, 750 , 858 A.2d 882 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906 , 868 A.2d 747 (2005).
discussed Cited "see" Worth v. Commissioner of Transportation (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
The appropriate challenge is “by way of a properly pleaded special defense; see Practice Book § 10-60 . . . .” LaBow v. LaBow, 85 Conn. App. 746, 750 , 858 A.2d 882 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906 , 868 A.2d 747 (2005). “ [Although a motion to dismiss may not be the proper procedural vehicle for asserting that an action is not saved by ... § 52-592, our Supreme Court has held that a trial court may properly consider a motion to dismiss in such circumstances when the plaintiff does not object to the use of the motion to dismiss.” Henriquez v. Allegre, 68 Conn. App. 238 , 241 n.6, …
discussed Cited "see" Fuchs v. Allstate Insurance
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Muro, 86 Conn. App. 551, 555 , 861 A.2d 1216 (2004) (“[i]f the language of an insurance policy is unambiguous, the interpretation of the terms of the policy is a question of law”), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 907 , 868 A.2d 747 (2005).
cited Cited "see" City of Bridgeport v. Triple 9 of Broad Street, Inc.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Muro, 86 Conn. App. 551, 555 , 861 A.2d 1216 (2004), cert, denied, 273 Conn. 907 , 868 A. 2d 747 (2005).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Indoor Billboard Northwest, Inc. v. M2 Systems Corp.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., LaBow v. LaBow, 85 Conn. App. 746 , 751–52, 858 A.2d 882 (2004) (‘‘[a]s we have stated on occasions too numerous to recite, mere abstract assertions, unaccom- panied by reasoned analysis, will not suffice to apprise a court adequately of the precise nature of a claim’’), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906 , 868 A.2d 747 (2005).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Caltabiano v. L & L Real Estate Holdings II, LLC
Conn. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., LaBow v. LaBow, 85 Conn. App. 746, 751-52 , 858 A.2d 882 (2004) (“[a]s we have stated on occasions too numerous to recite, mere abstract assertions, unaccompanied by reasoned analysis, will not suffice to apprise a court adequately of the precise nature of a claim”), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906 , 868 A.2d 747 (2005).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Silverstein v. CAMPOSEO
Conn. App. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., LaBow v. LaBow, 85 Conn. App. 746, 751-52 , 858 A.2d 882 (2004) (“[a]s we have stated on occasions too numerous to recite, mere abstract assertions, unaccompanied by reasoned analysis, will not suffice to apprise a court adequately of the precise nature of a claim”), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906 , 868 A.2d 747 (2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE CORPORATION
v.
ANTHONY L. MURO, JR.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 16, 2005.
868 A.2d 747
Darren P. Renner, in support of the petition., Thomas P. Willcutts, in opposition.
Published

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 86 Conn. App. 551 (AC 24392/ AC 24393/AC 24394), is denied.