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.
11 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Urban, No. Mv94-0193326 (May 9, 1995)green2 sentences1998The principal distinction between the two is that an absolute nuisance has the added requirement that the conduct be intentional.", supra, 25 Conn. App. 490 , quoting, supra, 144 Conn. 611 ; see also Homack v. Koehler , supra, 14 Conn. L. 1998The principal distinction between the two is that an absolute nuisance has the added requirement that the conduct be intentional.", supra, 25 Conn. App. 490 , quoting, supra, 144 Conn. 611 ; see also Homack v. Koehler , supra, 14 Conn. L. | 1 | 1 |
Falis v. Dawsongreen1 sentence1963"What was said by the trial court in Falis v. Dawson, 22 Conn. Sup. 472, 474 (1961), applies to the scope of the interposed demurrer at bar and to the cause of action for property damage injected long after the expiration of the statutory limitation of one year. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Green v. Ensign-Bickford Co.
green
2 sentences1995The principal distinction between the two is that an absolute nuisance has the added requirement that the conduct be intentional. . . . `Intentional' in this context means not that a wrong or the existence of a nuisance was intended, but that the creator of [it] intended to bring about the conditions which are in fact found to be a nuisance." (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Green v. Ensign-Bickford Co., 25 Conn. App. 479 , 490 , 595 A.2d 1383 (1991). "[N]uisances are public where they violate public rights, and produce a common injury, and where they co 1995The principal distinction between the two is that an absolute nuisance has the added requirement that the conduct be intentional. . . . `Intentional' in this context means not that a wrong or the existence of a nuisance was intended, but that the creator of [it] intended to bring about the conditions which are in fact found to be a nuisance." (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Green v. Ensign-Bickford Co., 25 Conn. App. 479 , 490 , 595 A.2d 1383 (1991). "[N]uisances are public where they violate public rights, and produce a common injury, and where they co | 5 | 1992–2004 |
Monick v. Town of Greenwich
green
2 sentences2000Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. , 176 Conn. 33 , 35-36 , 404 A.2d 889 (1978)." (See Licki Memorandum, p. 5.) Licki also argues that "absolute nuisance has an added requirement that the conduct be intentional." Monick v. Greenwich , 144 Conn. 608 , 611-12 , 136 A.2d 501 (1957). 2000Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. , 176 Conn. 33 , 35-36 , 404 A.2d 889 (1978)." (See Licki Memorandum, p. 5.) Licki also argues that "absolute nuisance has an added requirement that the conduct be intentional." Monick v. Greenwich , 144 Conn. 608 , 611-12 , 136 A.2d 501 (1957). | 3 | 1991–2000 |
Beckwith v. Town of Stratford
green
2 sentences1992Monick v. Greenwich, 144 Conn. 608 , 611 , 136 A.2d 501 (1957). "`Intentional," in this context, means "not that a wrong or the existence of a nuisance was intended, but that the creator of [it] intended to bring about the conditions which are in fact found to be a nuisance."' Dingwell v. Litchfield, 4 Conn. App. 621 , 624 , 496 A.2d 213 (1985), quoting Beckwith v. Stratford, 129 Conn. 506 , 510-11 , 29 A.2d 775 (1942)." Green v. Ensign-Bickford Co., supra, at 490. 1992Monick v. Greenwich, 144 Conn. 608 , 611 , 136 A.2d 501 (1957). "`Intentional," in this context, means "not that a wrong or the existence of a nuisance was intended, but that the creator of [it] intended to bring about the conditions which are in fact found to be a nuisance."' Dingwell v. Litchfield, 4 Conn. App. 621 , 624 , 496 A.2d 213 (1985), quoting Beckwith v. Stratford, 129 Conn. 506 , 510-11 , 29 A.2d 775 (1942)." Green v. Ensign-Bickford Co., supra, at 490. | 2 | 1991–1992 |
Dingwell v. Town of Litchfield
green
2 sentences1992Monick v. Greenwich, 144 Conn. 608 , 611 , 136 A.2d 501 (1957). "`Intentional," in this context, means "not that a wrong or the existence of a nuisance was intended, but that the creator of [it] intended to bring about the conditions which are in fact found to be a nuisance."' Dingwell v. Litchfield, 4 Conn. App. 621 , 624 , 496 A.2d 213 (1985), quoting Beckwith v. Stratford, 129 Conn. 506 , 510-11 , 29 A.2d 775 (1942)." Green v. Ensign-Bickford Co., supra, at 490. 1992Monick v. Greenwich, 144 Conn. 608 , 611 , 136 A.2d 501 (1957). "`Intentional," in this context, means "not that a wrong or the existence of a nuisance was intended, but that the creator of [it] intended to bring about the conditions which are in fact found to be a nuisance."' Dingwell v. Litchfield, 4 Conn. App. 621 , 624 , 496 A.2d 213 (1985), quoting Beckwith v. Stratford, 129 Conn. 506 , 510-11 , 29 A.2d 775 (1942)." Green v. Ensign-Bickford Co., supra, at 490. | 2 | 1991–1992 |
Green v. Ensign-Bickford Co.
green
1 sentence2004Intentional, in this context, means not that a wrong or the existence of a nuisance was intended, but that the creator of [it] intended to bring about the conditions which are in fact found to be a nuisance.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Green v. Ensign-Bickford Co., 25 Conn. App. 479, 490 , 595 A.2d 1383 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 919 , 597 A.2d 341 (1991). 2 Throughout its memorandum, the defendant appears to challenge the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ complaint. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
C.N.A. Insurance v. Colman
green
1 sentence2004Intentional, in this context, means not that a wrong or the existence of a nuisance was intended, but that the creator of [it] intended to bring about the conditions which are in fact found to be a nuisance.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Green v. Ensign-Bickford Co., 25 Conn. App. 479, 490 , 595 A.2d 1383 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 919 , 597 A.2d 341 (1991). 2 Throughout its memorandum, the defendant appears to challenge the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ complaint. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Battistoni
green
2 sentences2001First, they argue that the intent of the parties should be effectuated; Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Battistoni, 160 Conn. 503 , 511 , 280 A.2d 877 (1971), and there is no language in the contract which simply states that "either party may cancel this contract for any reason within fourteen days." The plaintiffs stress that if the contract can be terminated, as argued by the defendants, for any reason, this interpretation would render the added requirement of attorney review and approval meaningless and thus in contravention of our case law. 2001First, they argue that the intent of the parties should be effectuated; Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Battistoni, 160 Conn. 503 , 511 , 280 A.2d 877 (1971), and there is no language in the contract which simply states that "either party may cancel this contract for any reason within fourteen days." The plaintiffs stress that if the contract can be terminated, as argued by the defendants, for any reason, this interpretation would render the added requirement of attorney review and approval meaningless and thus in contravention of our case law. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Regency Savings Bank v. Westmark Partners
green
2 sentences2001Regency Savings Bank v. Westmark Partners, 59 Conn. App. 160 , 756 A.2d 299 (2000). 2001Regency Savings Bank v. Westmark Partners, 59 Conn. App. 160 , 756 A.2d 299 (2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.
green
2 sentences2000Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. , 176 Conn. 33 , 35-36 , 404 A.2d 889 (1978)." (See Licki Memorandum, p. 5.) Licki also argues that "absolute nuisance has an added requirement that the conduct be intentional." Monick v. Greenwich , 144 Conn. 608 , 611-12 , 136 A.2d 501 (1957). 2000Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. , 176 Conn. 33 , 35-36 , 404 A.2d 889 (1978)." (See Licki Memorandum, p. 5.) Licki also argues that "absolute nuisance has an added requirement that the conduct be intentional." Monick v. Greenwich , 144 Conn. 608 , 611-12 , 136 A.2d 501 (1957). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.