Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1899–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Curciogreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., Hopkins v. O’Connor, 282 Conn. 821, 828 , 925 A.2d 1030 (2007) (denial of motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when motion is predicated upon colorable claim of absolute immunity based on sovereign immunity); Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, 124 Conn. App. 228, 236 , 4 A.3d 851 (2010) (denial of motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when denial is due to doctrine of collateral estoppel or res judicata); see also State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31 , 463 A.2d 566 (1983) (establishing two circumstances in which otherwise interlocutory order is appealab 2025See, e.g., Hopkins v. O’Connor, 282 Conn. 821, 828 , 925 A.2d 1030 (2007) (denial of motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when motion is predicated upon colorable claim of absolute immunity based on sovereign immunity); Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, 124 Conn. App. 228, 236 , 4 A.3d 851 (2010) (denial of motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when denial is due to doctrine of collateral estoppel or res judicata); see also State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31 , 463 A.2d 566 (1983) (establishing two circumstances in which otherwise interlocutory order is appealab | 1 | 1 |
Hopkins v. O'CONNORgreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., Hopkins v. O’Connor, 282 Conn. 821, 828 , 925 A.2d 1030 (2007) (denial of motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when motion is predicated upon colorable claim of absolute immunity based on sovereign immunity); Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, 124 Conn. App. 228, 236 , 4 A.3d 851 (2010) (denial of motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when denial is due to doctrine of collateral estoppel or res judicata); see also State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31 , 463 A.2d 566 (1983) (establishing two circumstances in which otherwise interlocutory order is appealab 2025See, e.g., Hopkins v. O’Connor, 282 Conn. 821, 828 , 925 A.2d 1030 (2007) (denial of motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when motion is predicated upon colorable claim of absolute immunity based on sovereign immunity); Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, 124 Conn. App. 228, 236 , 4 A.3d 851 (2010) (denial of motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when denial is due to doctrine of collateral estoppel or res judicata); see also State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31 , 463 A.2d 566 (1983) (establishing two circumstances in which otherwise interlocutory order is appealab | 1 | 1 |
Waterbury Teachers Ass'n v. Freedom of Information Commissiongreen2 sentences2023Compare Freedom of Information Officer, Dept. of Mental Health & Addic- tion Services v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 318 Conn. 784 (noting that ‘‘the exceptions to the general rule of nondisclosure of communications between psychiatrist and patient were drafted narrowly to ensure that the confidentiality of such communica- tions would be protected unless important countervail- ing considerations required their disclosure’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), with Waterbury Teachers Assn. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 240 Conn. 835, 840 , 694 A.2d 1241 (1997) (‘‘the long- 2023Compare Freedom of Information Officer, Dept. of Mental Health & Addic- tion Services v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 318 Conn. 784 (noting that ‘‘the exceptions to the general rule of nondisclosure of communications between psychiatrist and patient were drafted narrowly to ensure that the confidentiality of such communica- tions would be protected unless important countervail- ing considerations required their disclosure’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), with Waterbury Teachers Assn. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 240 Conn. 835, 840 , 694 A.2d 1241 (1997) (‘‘the long- | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2017See State v. Jenkins , 271 Conn. 165 , 183, 856 A.2d 383 (2004) ("in the absence of express consent by the patient, courts have no authority to create nonstatutory exceptions to the general rule of nondisclosure"); Falco v. Institute of Living , supra, at 330, 757 A.2d 571 ("[T]he legislature has narrowly drafted the exceptions to the general rule against disclosure after carefully balancing the important countervailing considerations .... 2017See State v. Jenkins , 271 Conn. 165 , 183, 856 A.2d 383 (2004) ("in the absence of express consent by the patient, courts have no authority to create nonstatutory exceptions to the general rule of nondisclosure"); Falco v. Institute of Living , supra, at 330, 757 A.2d 571 ("[T]he legislature has narrowly drafted the exceptions to the general rule against disclosure after carefully balancing the important countervailing considerations .... | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 321143
green
2 sentences2002One of the exceptions to the general rule of non liability is the continuity of enterprise theory Cyr v. Boffen and Co., Inc . 501 F.2d 1145 [CA 11974]. 2002One of the exceptions to the general rule of non liability is the continuity of enterprise theory Cyr v. Boffen and Co., Inc . 501 F.2d 1145 [CA11974]. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Singhaviroj v. Board of Education
green
2 sentences2025See, e.g., Hopkins v. O’Connor, 282 Conn. 821, 828 , 925 A.2d 1030 (2007) (denial of motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when motion is predicated upon colorable claim of absolute immunity based on sovereign immunity); Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, 124 Conn. App. 228, 236 , 4 A.3d 851 (2010) (denial of motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when denial is due to doctrine of collateral estoppel or res judicata); see also State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31 , 463 A.2d 566 (1983) (establishing two circumstances in which otherwise interlocutory order is appealab 2025See, e.g., Hopkins v. O’Connor, 282 Conn. 821, 828 , 925 A.2d 1030 (2007) (denial of motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when motion is predicated upon colorable claim of absolute immunity based on sovereign immunity); Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, 124 Conn. App. 228, 236 , 4 A.3d 851 (2010) (denial of motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when denial is due to doctrine of collateral estoppel or res judicata); see also State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31 , 463 A.2d 566 (1983) (establishing two circumstances in which otherwise interlocutory order is appealab | 1 | 2025–2025 |
BROWN AND BROWN, INC. v. Blumenthal
green
2 sentences2025In the present case, the court’s denial of the defendant’s first motion for summary judgment was not a final judgment.12 See Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 288 Conn. 646, 653 , 954 A.2d 816 (2008) (‘‘denial of a motion for summary judgment does not result in a judgment’’); see also CFM of Connecticut, 12 None of the exceptions to the general rule that a denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment applies in the present case. 2025In the present case, the court’s denial of the defendant’s first motion for summary judgment was not a final judgment.12 See Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 288 Conn. 646, 653 , 954 A.2d 816 (2008) (‘‘denial of a motion for summary judgment does not result in a judgment’’); see also CFM of Connecticut, 12 None of the exceptions to the general rule that a denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment applies in the present case. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Falco v. Institute of Living
green
1 sentence2017See State v. Jenkins , 271 Conn. 165 , 183, 856 A.2d 383 (2004) ("in the absence of express consent by the patient, courts have no authority to create nonstatutory exceptions to the general rule of nondisclosure"); Falco v. Institute of Living , supra, at 330, 757 A.2d 571 ("[T]he legislature has narrowly drafted the exceptions to the general rule against disclosure after carefully balancing the important countervailing considerations .... | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Lawrence
green
1 sentence2009Id., at 159 , 913 A.2d 428 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Sinchak
green
2 sentences2003This court, recognizing that the decision was “ ‘a close call’ id., 170 ; concluded that although the uncharged misconduct was relevant to at least one of the exceptions to the general rule that uncharged misconduct is inadmissible, “the prejudicial effect of the other misconduct evidence outweighed its minimal probative value and that its admission into evidence constituted an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.” Id., 175 . 2003This court, recognizing that the decision was “ ‘a close call’ id., 170 ; concluded that although the uncharged misconduct was relevant to at least one of the exceptions to the general rule that uncharged misconduct is inadmissible, “the prejudicial effect of the other misconduct evidence outweighed its minimal probative value and that its admission into evidence constituted an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.” Id., 175 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Home Insurance v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence1999Accordingly, the exceptions to the general rule of nondisclosure of communications between psychiatrist and patient were drafted narrowly to ensure that the confidentiality of such communications will be protected unless important countervailing considerations require their disclosure." CT Page 14730 (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Anselmo v. Cox
green
1 sentence1998The exceptions to the general rule of sovereign immunity are 1) clear waiver by the state; 2) suits for declaratory judgment alleging unconstitutional action by state officials; Anselmo v. Cox, 135 Conn. 78 , 81-82 ; 3) claims for violation of article first § 11 of the Connecticut Constitution; Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615 ; Senter v. Board of Trustees, 184 Conn. 339 , 343 ; 4) wilful or wanton actions by state officials. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Horton v. Meskill
green
1 sentence1998The exceptions to the general rule of sovereign immunity are 1) clear waiver by the state; 2) suits for declaratory judgment alleging unconstitutional action by state officials; Anselmo v. Cox, 135 Conn. 78 , 81-82 ; 3) claims for violation of article first § 11 of the Connecticut Constitution; Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615 ; Senter v. Board of Trustees, 184 Conn. 339 , 343 ; 4) wilful or wanton actions by state officials. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Sentner v. Board of Trustees of Regional Community Colleges
green
1 sentence1998The exceptions to the general rule of sovereign immunity are 1) clear waiver by the state; 2) suits for declaratory judgment alleging unconstitutional action by state officials; Anselmo v. Cox, 135 Conn. 78 , 81-82 ; 3) claims for violation of article first § 11 of the Connecticut Constitution; Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615 ; Senter v. Board of Trustees, 184 Conn. 339 , 343 ; 4) wilful or wanton actions by state officials. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Lake v. City of Bridgeport
green
2 sentences1985Lake v. Bridgeport, 102 Conn. 337, 343 , 128 A. 782 (1925). 1985Lake v. Bridgeport, 102 Conn. 337, 343 , 128 A. 782 (1925). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
McKiernan v. City of New Haven
green
1 sentence1985The exceptions to the general rule “arise in situations where the contract of employment itself involves, in its actual performance, or as an incident annexed to it with the knowledge and consent of the employer, the use of the public highways”; id., 499 ; or that the employer contracts to furnish transportation to or from work. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Fair v. Hartford Rubber Works Co.
green
1 sentence1950“The rule which denies a rehearing to a nondiligent litigant is not applied in cases where the state is interested for reasons of public policy.” In re Application of Title & Guaranty Co., supra, 55; Fair v. Hartford Rubber Works Co., 95 Conn. 350, 356 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Gustafson v. Rustemeyer
green
2 sentences1899Gustafson v. Rustemeyer, 70 Conn. 125, 133 ; Scholfield Gear & Pulley Co. v. Scholfield , 71 id. 1 . 1899Gustafson v. Rustemeyer, 70 Conn. 125, 133 ; Scholfield Gear & Pulley Co. v. Scholfield , 71 id. 1 . | 1 | 1899–1899 |
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.