16 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Heigl v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2001"A motion to strike is the proper vehicle for resolving the issues of whether a cause of action is barred by governmental immunity and whether an exception to governmental immunity is sufficiently pleaded." Matthews v. Sklarz , Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 582036 (February 25, 1999, Hennessey, J. ), citing Heigl v. Board of Education , 218 Conn. 1 , 2-3 , 587 A.2d 423 (1991); Evon v. Andrews , 211 Conn. 501 , 502-04 , 559 A.2d 1131 (1989). 2001"A motion to strike is the proper vehicle for resolving the issues of whether a cause of action is barred by governmental immunity and whether an exception to governmental immunity is sufficiently pleaded." Matthews v. Sklarz , Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 582036 (February 25, 1999, Hennessey, J. ), citing Heigl v. Board of Education , 218 Conn. 1 , 2-3 , 587 A.2d 423 (1991); Evon v. Andrews , 211 Conn. 501 , 502-04 , 559 A.2d 1131 (1989). | 3 | 6 |
Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authoritygreen2 sentences1994In addition, the plaintiff argues that the actions of the public officers fall under the exception to governmental immunity as the victim was identifiable and in imminent danger. "[T]he great weight of authority [is] that the operation of a police department is a discretionary governmental function." Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority , 208 Conn. 161 , 179 , 544 A.2d 1185 (1988). "`[W]here the duty of the public official to act is not ministerial but instead involves the exercise of discretion, the negligent failure to act will not subject the public official to liability unless the duty t 1994In addition, the plaintiff argues that the actions of the public officers fall under the exception to governmental immunity as the victim was identifiable and in imminent danger. "[T]he great weight of authority [is] that the operation of a police department is a discretionary governmental function." Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority , 208 Conn. 161 , 179 , 544 A.2d 1185 (1988). "`[W]here the duty of the public official to act is not ministerial but instead involves the exercise of discretion, the negligent failure to act will not subject the public official to liability unless the duty t | 1 | 2 |
Swanson v. City of Grotongreen2 sentences2010See Swanson v. Groton, 116 Conn. App. 849, 854-55 , 977 A.2d 738 (2009). 4 The plaintiff also argues that, when making its decision on the motion to strike, the court improperly assumed that her negligence claim was based *288 on the exception to governmental immunity that “when the circumstances make it apparent to the public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable [or foreseeable] person to imminent harm, the public officer is not entitled to qualified immunity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fleming v. Bridgeport, 284 Conn. 502, 532 , 935 A.2d 2010See Swanson v. Groton, 116 Conn. App. 849, 854-55 , 977 A.2d 738 (2009). 4 The plaintiff also argues that, when making its decision on the motion to strike, the court improperly assumed that her negligence claim was based *288 on the exception to governmental immunity that “when the circumstances make it apparent to the public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable [or foreseeable] person to imminent harm, the public officer is not entitled to qualified immunity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fleming v. Bridgeport, 284 Conn. 502, 532 , 935 A.2d | 1 | 1 |
Fleming v. City of Bridgeportgreen2 sentences2010See Swanson v. Groton, 116 Conn. App. 849, 854-55 , 977 A.2d 738 (2009). 4 The plaintiff also argues that, when making its decision on the motion to strike, the court improperly assumed that her negligence claim was based *288 on the exception to governmental immunity that “when the circumstances make it apparent to the public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable [or foreseeable] person to imminent harm, the public officer is not entitled to qualified immunity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fleming v. Bridgeport, 284 Conn. 502, 532 , 935 A.2d 2010See Swanson v. Groton, 116 Conn. App. 849, 854-55 , 977 A.2d 738 (2009). 4 The plaintiff also argues that, when making its decision on the motion to strike, the court improperly assumed that her negligence claim was based *288 on the exception to governmental immunity that “when the circumstances make it apparent to the public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable [or foreseeable] person to imminent harm, the public officer is not entitled to qualified immunity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fleming v. Bridgeport, 284 Conn. 502, 532 , 935 A.2d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Evon v. Andrews
green
2 sentences2003Indeed, in Evon v. Andrews , supra , 211 Conn. 501 and in several Superior Court cases decided since Purzycki v. Fairfield , courts have granted motions to strike based on the failure to sufficiently allege "imminent harm" so as to fall within the exception to governmental immunity. 2001"A motion to strike is the proper vehicle for resolving the issues of whether a cause of action is barred by governmental immunity and whether an exception to governmental immunity is sufficiently pleaded." Matthews v. Sklarz , Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 582036 (February 25, 1999, Hennessey, J. ), citing Heigl v. Board of Education , 218 Conn. 1 , 2-3 , 587 A.2d 423 (1991); Evon v. Andrews , 211 Conn. 501 , 502-04 , 559 A.2d 1131 (1989). | 8 | 1994–2003 |
Burns v. Board of Education
green
2 sentences1996CT Page 719 The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification and examined the exception to governmental immunity which permits "a tort action in circumstances of perceptible imminent harm to an identifiable person [or class of persons]." Id., 646 . 1995The plaintiff posits that in Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. 640 , the Supreme Court held that school children are an identifiable class to which supervisory officials owe a duty of care, a duty which is breached when those officials fail to prevent "foreseeable" harm. | 2 | 1995–1996 |
Merritt v. Town of Bethel Police Department
green
2 sentences2020However, governmental immunity does not apply when ‘the circumstances make it appar- ent to [a] public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm. . . . ’ Merritt v. Bethel Police Dept., 120 Conn. App. 806, 812 , 993 A.2d 1006 (2010).’’ (Citation omitted.) Applying these principles, the court deter- mined that this exception to governmental immunity did not apply. 2020However, governmental immunity does not apply when ‘the circumstances make it appar- ent to [a] public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm. . . . ’ Merritt v. Bethel Police Dept., 120 Conn. App. 806, 812 , 993 A.2d 1006 (2010).’’ (Citation omitted.) Applying these principles, the court deter- mined that this exception to governmental immunity did not apply. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Purzycki v. Town of Fairfield
green
1 sentence2001Id., 110 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Brown v. Town of Branford
green
1 sentence2001"A motion to strike is the proper vehicle for resolving the issues of whether a cause of action is barred by governmental immunity and whether an exception to governmental immunity is sufficiently pleaded." Id., quoting Matthews v. Sklarz , Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 582036 (February 25, 1999) (Hennessey, J.), citing Heigl v. Board of Education , 218 Conn. 1 , 2-3 , 587 A.2d 423 (1991); Evon v. Andrews , 211 Conn. 501 , 502-04 , 558 A.2d 1131 (1989) The court agrees with the defendant City of Shelton's argument that Count 13 is time-barred | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Peters v. Town of Greenwich, No. Cv 95-0147192 S (Jan. 2, 2001)
green
1 sentence2001Furthermore, "[a] motion to strike is the proper vehicle for resolving the issues of whether a cause of action is barred by governmental immunity and whether an exception to governmental immunity is sufficiently pleaded." Peters v. Town of Greenwich, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 147192 (January 2, 2001, D'Andrea, J.) ( 28 Conn. L. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners
green
2 sentences2000The legislative history of § 52-557n is “worse than murky” and “reflects confusion with respect to precisely what part of the preexisting law was being codified, and what part was being limited.” Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179, 188 , 592 A.2d 912 (1991). 2000The legislative history of § 52-557n is “worse than murky” and “reflects confusion with respect to precisely what part of the preexisting law was being codified, and what part was being limited.” Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179, 188 , 592 A.2d 912 (1991). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Elliott v. City of Waterbury
green
2 sentences1999In outlining the scope of governmental immunity, the Connecticut Supreme Court has stated that "municipalities and their employees or agents have immunity from negligence liability for governmental acts involving the exercise of judgment or discretion." Elliott v. Waterbury , 245 Conn. 385 , 411 , 715 A.2d 27 (1998). 1999In outlining the scope of governmental immunity, the Connecticut Supreme Court has stated that "municipalities and their employees or agents have immunity from negligence liability for governmental acts involving the exercise of judgment or discretion." Elliott v. Waterbury , 245 Conn. 385 , 411 , 715 A.2d 27 (1998). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Bonamico v. City of Middletown
neutral
2 sentences1999See Heigl v. Board of Education , 218 Conn. 1 , 2-3 , 587 A.2d 423 (1991); Evon v. Andrews , 211 Conn. 501 , 502-504 . 559 A.2d 1131 (1989); Bonamico v. Middletown , 49 Conn. App. 605 , 713 A.2d 1291 (1998); Stultz v. Larosa , Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland at Rockville, Docket No. 56704 (August 8, 1997, Klaczak, J. ). 1999See Heigl v. Board of Education , 218 Conn. 1 , 2-3 , 587 A.2d 423 (1991); Evon v. Andrews , 211 Conn. 501 , 502-504 . 559 A.2d 1131 (1989); Bonamico v. Middletown , 49 Conn. App. 605 , 713 A.2d 1291 (1998); Stultz v. Larosa , Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland at Rockville, Docket No. 56704 (August 8, 1997, Klaczak, J. ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Ryszkiewicz v. City of New Britain
green
2 sentences1997"At common law, Connecticut municipalities enjoy governmental immunity, in certain circumstances, from liability for their tortious acts." Ryszkiewicz v. New Britain, 193 Conn. 589 , 593 , 479 A.2d 793 (1984). 1997"At common law, Connecticut municipalities enjoy governmental immunity, in certain circumstances, from liability for their tortious acts." Ryszkiewicz v. New Britain, 193 Conn. 589 , 593 , 479 A.2d 793 (1984). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Beach v. Regional School District Number 13
green
2 sentences1997In general, "[t]he determination of whether official acts or omissions are ministerial or discretionary is a question of fact for the fact finder." Beach v. Regional School District Number 13, 42 Conn. App. 542 , 553 , 682 A.2d 118 (1996). 1997In general, "[t]he determination of whether official acts or omissions are ministerial or discretionary is a question of fact for the fact finder." Beach v. Regional School District Number 13, 42 Conn. App. 542 , 553 , 682 A.2d 118 (1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Sestito v. City of Groton
green
2 sentences1994The facts regarding governmental immunity should go to a jury where there is "sufficient controversy over whether the defendant . . . owed a duty to the plaintiff's decedent and breached it." Sestito v. Groton , 178 Conn. 520 , 528 , 423 A.2d 165 (1979). 1994The facts regarding governmental immunity should go to a jury where there is "sufficient controversy over whether the defendant . . . owed a duty to the plaintiff's decedent and breached it." Sestito v. Groton , 178 Conn. 520 , 528 , 423 A.2d 165 (1979). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.