obvious purpose requirement in Connecticut

2002The obvious purpose of this requirement is to prevent the jury from awarding damages for future medical expenses based merely on speculation or conjecture.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Marchetti v. Ramirez, 240 Conn. 49, 54 , 688 A.2d 1325 (1997).

2002The obvious purpose of this requirement is to prevent the jury from awarding damages for future medical expenses based merely on speculation or conjecture.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Marchetti v. Ramirez, 240 Conn. 49, 54 , 688 A.2d 1325 (1997).

2000Practice Book § 10-68 states that whenever a statute provides for a remedy and further requires that notice be given "the plaintiff shall either recite the same in the complaint or annex a copy thereto." This Practice Book provision has been in effect for decades and one court has said that "The obvious purpose of this rule is to have the sufficiency of the notice, if challenged, tested by demurrer preceding the trial." Barteis v. Windsor , 134 Conn. 569 , 571 (1948), citing Cassidy v. Southbury , 85 Conn. 221 , 222 ( ).

1948Cassidy v. Southbury, 85 Conn. 221, 222 , 82 A. 198 .

2000Practice Book § 10-68 states that whenever a statute provides for a remedy and further requires that notice be given "the plaintiff shall either recite the same in the complaint or annex a copy thereto." This Practice Book provision has been in effect for decades and one court has said that "The obvious purpose of this rule is to have the sufficiency of the notice, if challenged, tested by demurrer preceding the trial." Barteis v. Windsor , 134 Conn. 569 , 571 (1948), citing Cassidy v. Southbury , 85 Conn. 221 , 222 ( ).

1964“The obvious purpose of this rule is to have the sufficiency of the notice, if challenged, tested by demurrer preceding the trial.” Barteis v. Windsor, 134 Conn. 569, 571 .

1990Section 13a-144 provides, inter alia, that no action may be brought under that statute unless a written notice is given, containing certain prescribed informa *427 tion, including the cause of the injury and the place of its occurrence. “ ‘The obvious purpose of this requirement is that officers of [governmental agencies] against which suits for injuries are about to be instituted, shall have such precise information as to time and place as will enable them to enquire into the facts of the case intelligently.’ Shaw v. Waterbury, 46 Conn. 263, 266 [1878].” Schaap v. Meriden, 139 Conn. 254, 256

1990Section 13a-144 provides, inter alia, that no action may be brought under that statute unless a written notice is given, containing certain prescribed informa *427 tion, including the cause of the injury and the place of its occurrence. “ ‘The obvious purpose of this requirement is that officers of [governmental agencies] against which suits for injuries are about to be instituted, shall have such precise information as to time and place as will enable them to enquire into the facts of the case intelligently.’ Shaw v. Waterbury, 46 Conn. 263, 266 [1878].” Schaap v. Meriden, 139 Conn. 254, 256

2004The obvious purpose of that requirement is to present the court with the necessary transcripts of evidence to consider a party’s objection and to determine whether there is support in the record for the referee’s findings of fact. ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Irving v. Firehouse Associates, LLC, 82 Conn. App. 715, 720 , 846 A.2d 918 (2004).

2004The obvious purpose of that requirement is to present the court with the necessary transcripts of evidence to consider a party’s objection and to determine whether there is support in the record for the referee’s findings of fact. ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Irving v. Firehouse Associates, LLC, 82 Conn. App. 715, 720 , 846 A.2d 918 (2004).

1998“Any person specifically and materially damaged by a violation of the zoning ordinances which has occurred or is likely to occur on another’s land may seek injunctive relief restraining such violation.” Karls v. Alexandra Realty Corp. 179 Conn. 390, 401 , 426 A.2d 784 (1980).

1998“Any person specifically and materially damaged by a violation of the zoning ordinances which has occurred or is likely to occur on another’s land may seek injunctive relief restraining such violation.” Karls v. Alexandra Realty Corp. 179 Conn. 390, 401 , 426 A.2d 784 (1980).

1992"The question of adequacy of notice `is one for the jury and not for the court, and the cases make it clear that this question must be determined on the basis of the facts of the particular case.'" Zotta v. Burns, 8 Conn. App. 169 , 173 , 511 A.2d 373 (1986), quoting Morico v. Cox, 134 Conn. 218 , 223 , 56 A.2d 522 (1947).

1992"The question of adequacy of notice `is one for the jury and not for the court, and the cases make it clear that this question must be determined on the basis of the facts of the particular case.'" Zotta v. Burns, 8 Conn. App. 169 , 173 , 511 A.2d 373 (1986), quoting Morico v. Cox, 134 Conn. 218 , 223 , 56 A.2d 522 (1947).

1992"The question of adequacy of notice `is one for the jury and not for the court, and the cases make it clear that this question must be determined on the basis of the facts of the particular case.'" Zotta v. Burns, 8 Conn. App. 169 , 173 , 511 A.2d 373 (1986), quoting Morico v. Cox, 134 Conn. 218 , 223 , 56 A.2d 522 (1947).

1992"The question of adequacy of notice `is one for the jury and not for the court, and the cases make it clear that this question must be determined on the basis of the facts of the particular case.'" Zotta v. Burns, 8 Conn. App. 169 , 173 , 511 A.2d 373 (1986), quoting Morico v. Cox, 134 Conn. 218 , 223 , 56 A.2d 522 (1947).

1992"The obvious purpose of the requirement [of Section 13a-144 ] is that so officers of municipal corporations, against which suits for injuries are about to be instituted, can have such precise information as to the time and place as will enable them to inquire into the facts of the case intelligently." Ozmun v. Burns, 18 Conn. App. 677 , 680 , 559 A.2d 1143 (1989).

1992"The obvious purpose of the requirement [of Section 13a-144 ] is that so officers of municipal corporations, against which suits for injuries are about to be instituted, can have such precise information as to the time and place as will enable them to inquire into the facts of the case intelligently." Ozmun v. Burns, 18 Conn. App. 677 , 680 , 559 A.2d 1143 (1989).

1991In Marino v. East Haven, 120 Conn. 577 , 578 , 182 A. 225 , the court stated: "The obvious purpose of this requirement is that officers of municipal corporations, against which suits for injuries are about to be instituted, shall have such precise information as to time and place as will enable them to enquire into the facts of the case intelligently." Shaw v. Waterbury, 46 Conn. 263 , 266 .

1991In Marino v. East Haven, 120 Conn. 577 , 578 , 182 A. 225 , the court stated: "The obvious purpose of this requirement is that officers of municipal corporations, against which suits for injuries are about to be instituted, shall have such precise information as to time and place as will enable them to enquire into the facts of the case intelligently." Shaw v. Waterbury, 46 Conn. 263 , 266 .

1990“If this purpose is to be served the ‘cause’ of the injury which is required to be stated must be interpreted to mean the defect or defective condition of the highway which brought about the injury.” Nicholaus v. Bridgeport, 117 Conn. 398, 401 , 167 A. 826 (1933).

1990“If this purpose is to be served the ‘cause’ of the injury which is required to be stated must be interpreted to mean the defect or defective condition of the highway which brought about the injury.” Nicholaus v. Bridgeport, 117 Conn. 398, 401 , 167 A. 826 (1933).