How cited: Martin v. Brady · Go Syfert

Martin v. Brady (2001)

green · 44 citation events across 5 courts. Showing the 10 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200120132026
Quote Authority · D. Conn. · 5 citations in this opinion
Jan. 19, 2010) (finding no right of action where defendant officers’ alleged misconduct “involve[d] no physical confrontation akin to the level of force at issue in Binette ”); Martin v. Brady, 64 Conn.App. 433, 442 [, 780 A.2d 961 ] (2001) (“Apart from the illegality of the entry, the plaintiff complains of having been pushed to the ground on one occasion and of having windows and doors smashed on another occasion.
“Apart from the illegality of the entry, the plaintiff complains of having been pushed to the ground on one occasion and of having windows and doors smashed on another occasion. We are not persuaded that these allegations, if true, rise to the legal of egregious misconduct.”
green Wynne v. East Hartford (2023)
Rule Authority · D. Conn.
As defendants note, some Connecticut courts and courts in this District have held that a defendant can only be held liable for misconduct that is “egregious.” See Martin v. Brady, 64 Conn. App. 433, 440-41 (2001); Bauer v. City of Hartford, No. 3:07-CV-1375, 2010 WL 4429697 , at *12 (D.
Quote Authority · D. Conn.
Id. at *4 (citing Martin v. Brady, 64 Conn.App. 433, 441 (2001) (“We are not persuaded that these allegations, if true, rise to the level of egregious misconduct.
“We are not persuaded that these allegations, if true, rise to the level of egregious misconduct. They are a far remove from the allegations of misconduct that underlay Binette.”
Cited · Conn. Super. Ct. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Martin v. Brady, 64 Conn. App. 433 , 434-35 , 780 A.2d 961 (2001), aff'd, 261 Conn. 372 , 802 A.2d 814 (2002).
Cited · Conn. App. Ct. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Martin v. Brady, 64 Conn. App. 433, 438 , 780 A.2d 961 (2001), aff'd, 261 Conn. 372 , 802 A.2d 814 (2002).
green Hultman v. Blumenthal (2002)
Cited · Conn. App. Ct. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Martin v. Brady, 64 Conn. App. 433, 436-38 , 780 A.2d 961 , cert. granted on other grounds, 258 Conn. 919 , 782 A.2d 1244 (2001).
green Harnage v. Shari (2019)
Cited · D. Conn. · signal: see
See Martin v. Brady, 64 Conn. App. 433, 439 (2001), aff’d, 261 Conn. 372 (2002) (“Binette did not purport to announce an overarching universal principle . . .
green Kelly v. Santiago (2019)
Cited (see also) · D. Conn. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., Martin v. Brady, 64 Conn. App. 433, 441 (2001) (holding that allegations that police pushed plaintiff to ground and smashed windows and doors did not constitute egregious conduct and, therefore, failed to state a claim under Article First, Sections Seven and Nine of the Connecticut Constitution).
holding that allegations that police pushed plaintiff to ground and smashed windows and doors did not constitute egregious conduct and, therefore, failed to state a claim under Article First, Sections Seven and Nine of the Connecticut Constitution
Cited · Iowa Ct. App. · signal: see
See generally Martin v. Brady, 780 A.2d 961, 966 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001) (holding the officers’ conduct was not sufficiently egregious to warrant the availability of a private cause of action for a violation of the Connecticut Constitution, thereby narrowing the availability of the remedy); Spackman v. Bd. of Educ. of Box Elder Cnty.
holding the officers’ conduct was not sufficiently egregious to warrant the availability of a private cause of action for a violation of the Connecticut Constitution, thereby narrowing the availability of the remedy
Cited · Conn. Super. Ct. · signal: see
See generally, Martin v. Brady, 64 Conn. App. 433 , 437-38 , ___ A.2d ___ (2001) (in the absence of any allegation other than the specific claim that the defendants acted in their official capacity, "the form in which the plaintiff cited the defendants does not matter").
in the absence of any allegation other than the specific claim that the defendants acted in their official capacity, "the form in which the plaintiff cited the defendants does not matter"