set forth analysis in Connecticut

2016In doing so, the court explained: "Long ago, in Hanna v. Sweeney , 78 Conn. 492 , 62 A. 785 (1906), this court set forth the rule which we have since followed regarding the appropriate measure of [common-law] punitive damages.

2016In doing so, the court explained: "Long ago, in Hanna v. Sweeney , 78 Conn. 492 , 62 A. 785 (1906), this court set forth the rule which we have since followed regarding the appropriate measure of [common-law] punitive damages.

2000In Bourque v. Morris , 190 Conn. 364 (1983), the Court set forth factors for the trial court to consider in determining if an arrangement falls under the exceptions of § 47a-2 (a).

1995In Bourque v. Morris, supra, the court set forth factors for the trial court to consider in determining if the arrangements fall under the exceptions under § 47a-2 (a).

1998Noting that it has recognized a duty of care to bystander relatives of injured parties in Clohessy v. Bachelor, 237 Conn. 31 , 675 A.2d 852 (1996), the court set forth the analysis to be used in determining the existence of a duty of care: “ ‘The existence of a duty is a question of law and only if such a duty is found to exist does the trier of fact then determine whether the defendant violated that duty in the particular situation at hand.’ ” Mendillo v. Board of Education, supra, 483, quoting RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 384 , 650 A.2d 153 (1994).

1998Noting that it has recognized a duty of care to bystander relatives of injured parties in Clohessy v. Bachelor, 237 Conn. 31 , 675 A.2d 852 (1996), the court set forth the analysis to be used in determining the existence of a duty of care: “ ‘The existence of a duty is a question of law and only if such a duty is found to exist does the trier of fact then determine whether the defendant violated that duty in the particular situation at hand.’ ” Mendillo v. Board of Education, supra, 483, quoting RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 384 , 650 A.2d 153 (1994).

1998Noting that it has recognized a duty of care to bystander relatives of injured parties in Clohessy v. Bachelor, 237 Conn. 31 , 675 A.2d 852 (1996), the court set forth the analysis to be used in determining the existence of a duty of care: “ ‘The existence of a duty is a question of law and only if such a duty is found to exist does the trier of fact then determine whether the defendant violated that duty in the particular situation at hand.’ ” Mendillo v. Board of Education, supra, 483, quoting RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 384 , 650 A.2d 153 (1994).

1998Noting that it has recognized a duty of care to bystander relatives of injured parties in Clohessy v. Bachelor, 237 Conn. 31 , 675 A.2d 852 (1996), the court set forth the analysis to be used in determining the existence of a duty of care: “ ‘The existence of a duty is a question of law and only if such a duty is found to exist does the trier of fact then determine whether the defendant violated that duty in the particular situation at hand.’ ” Mendillo v. Board of Education, supra, 483, quoting RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 384 , 650 A.2d 153 (1994).

2026P., 227 Conn. App. 698 , 717–18, 323 A.3d 1142 (2024).

2024Id., 431–32.17 Our 17 Those factors include: ‘‘[E]ach parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent’s and child’s life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements. . . . [Also relevant

2014Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L.

2014Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L.

2008The process is based on the principle that the amount of net income a property can produce is related to its market value.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Abington, LLC v. Avon, 101 Conn. App. 709 , 712 n.3, 922 A.2d 1148 (2007). 7 Because the court rejected Leary’s business plan valuation method and relied on his income capitalization method for the valuation of the subject property, we need not discuss the business plan approach. 8 The court set forth its analysis as follows: “The court agrees with . . .

2008The process is based on the principle that the amount of net income a property can produce is related to its market value.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Abington, LLC v. Avon, 101 Conn. App. 709 , 712 n.3, 922 A.2d 1148 (2007). 7 Because the court rejected Leary’s business plan valuation method and relied on his income capitalization method for the valuation of the subject property, we need not discuss the business plan approach. 8 The court set forth its analysis as follows: “The court agrees with . . .

1998The court applied the same formulation in Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563, 572 , 717 A.2d 215 (1998). *5 The court in Mendillo and Lodge defined the test for the existence of a legal duty of care as an issue of foreseeability of harm paired with public policy considerations concerning the extent of the consequences that should be included in the scope of liability of a negligent party. “ ‘We have stated that the test for the existence of a legal duty of care entails (1) a determination of whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew or shoul

1998The court applied the same formulation in Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563, 572 , 717 A.2d 215 (1998). *5 The court in Mendillo and Lodge defined the test for the existence of a legal duty of care as an issue of foreseeability of harm paired with public policy considerations concerning the extent of the consequences that should be included in the scope of liability of a negligent party. “ ‘We have stated that the test for the existence of a legal duty of care entails (1) a determination of whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew or shoul

1992In Carothers v. Capozziello, 215 Conn. 82 , 103-104 , 574 A.2d 1268 (1990), the Court set forth factors to be considered in levying a civil penalty for environmental violations: Those factors include, but are not limited to: (1) the size of the business involved; (2) the effect of the penalty or injunctive relief on its ability to continue operation; (3) the gravity of the violation; (4) the good faith efforts made by the business to comply with applicable statutory requirements; (5) any economic benefit gained by the violations; (6) deterrence of CT Page 10174 future violations; and (7) the f

1992In Carothers v. Capozziello, 215 Conn. 82 , 103-104 , 574 A.2d 1268 (1990), the Court set forth factors to be considered in levying a civil penalty for environmental violations: Those factors include, but are not limited to: (1) the size of the business involved; (2) the effect of the penalty or injunctive relief on its ability to continue operation; (3) the gravity of the violation; (4) the good faith efforts made by the business to comply with applicable statutory requirements; (5) any economic benefit gained by the violations; (6) deterrence of CT Page 10174 future violations; and (7) the f

1990The leading United States Supreme Court case of Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), recognized the right of police to respond to emergency situations, and held that "the Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid." In the recent case of State v. Klauss, 19 Conn. App. 296 , 300 (1989), the Appellate Court said that the "emergency" exception refers to a "type of warrantless entry that evolves outside the context of a criminal inv

1990The leading United States Supreme Court case of Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), recognized the right of police to respond to emergency situations, and held that "the Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid." In the recent case of State v. Klauss, 19 Conn. App. 296 , 300 (1989), the Appellate Court said that the "emergency" exception refers to a "type of warrantless entry that evolves outside the context of a criminal inv

1990The leading United States Supreme Court case of Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 , 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), recognized the right of police to respond to emergency situations, and held that "the Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid." In the recent case of State v. Klauss, 19 Conn. App. 296 , 300 (1989), the Appellate Court said that the "emergency" exception refers to a "type of warrantless entry that evolves outside the context of a criminal inv

1987In Chapman , how ever, and in the more recent case of Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577 , 106 S. Ct. 3101 , 92 L.

1987In Chapman , how ever, and in the more recent case of Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577 , 106 S. Ct. 3101 , 92 L.