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 3 courts 1996–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lussier v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2019We disagree. ‘‘The notice requirement contained in § 13a-144 is a condition precedent which, if not met, will prevent the destruction of sovereign immunity.’’ Lussier v. Depart- ment of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343, 354 , 636 A.2d 808 (1994). ‘‘The notice [mandated under § 13a-144] is to be tested with reference to the purpose for which it is required. . . . 2019We disagree. ‘‘The notice requirement contained in § 13a-144 is a condition precedent which, if not met, will prevent the destruction of sovereign immunity.’’ Lussier v. Depart- ment of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343, 354 , 636 A.2d 808 (1994). ‘‘The notice [mandated under § 13a-144] is to be tested with reference to the purpose for which it is required. . . . | 11 | 1996–2019 |
Warkentin v. Burns
green
2 sentences2013Lussier v. Dept. of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343, 354 , 636 A.2d 808 (1994). “[I]injured parties, to meet the requirements of [§ 13a-144], must either individually or through a representative, notify the commissioner that they have filed or intend to file a claim against the state for damages caused by a defective condition.” Warkentin v. Burns, 223 Conn. 14, 18 , 610 A.2d 1287 (1992). 1996The statute provides that "[n]o such action shall be brought . . . unless notice of such injury and a general description of the same and cause thereof and of the time and place of its occurrence has been given in writing within ninety days thereafter to the commissioner." The Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he notice requirement contained in § 13a-144 is a condition precedent which, if not met, will prevent the destruction of sovereign immunity;" Lussier v. Department of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343 , 354 (1994); such that "[i]f this requirement is not met, no cause of action exists." Wark | 2 | 1996–2013 |
Morico v. Cox
green
2 sentences2005“The notice [mandated under § 13a-144] is to be tested with reference to the purpose for which it is required.” Morico v. Cox, 134 Conn. 218, 223 , 56 A.2d 522 (1947). 2005“The notice [mandated under § 13a-144] is to be tested with reference to the purpose for which it is required.” Morico v. Cox, 134 Conn. 218, 223 , 56 A.2d 522 (1947). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Amore v. Frankel
green
1 sentence1998In Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358 , 364 (1994) the court said that "the doctrine of sovereign immunity, implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss." There is no allegation in the complaint that notice was served on the commissioner within the statutory prescribed period as set forth in § 13a-144 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.