11 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maccarone v. Hawleygreen1 sentence1991Ferryman v. Groton, 212 Conn. 138 , 144 (1989); see also Maccarone v. Hawley, 7 Conn. App. 19 , 22-23 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ferryman v. City of Groton
green
2 sentences2016Ferryman v. Groton , 212 Conn. 138 , 561 A.2d 432 (1989), is illuminating on this point. *779 In Ferryman , our Supreme Court stated that "[w]hen the third party, in a suit by the employee, seeks recovery over against a contributorily negligent employer, contribution [or indemnification] 8 is ordinarily denied on the ground that the employer cannot be said to be jointly liable in tort to the employee because of the operation of the exclusive-remedy clause. 2016Ferryman v. Groton , 212 Conn. 138 , 561 A.2d 432 (1989), is illuminating on this point. *779 In Ferryman , our Supreme Court stated that "[w]hen the third party, in a suit by the employee, seeks recovery over against a contributorily negligent employer, contribution [or indemnification] 8 is ordinarily denied on the ground that the employer cannot be said to be jointly liable in tort to the employee because of the operation of the exclusive-remedy clause. | 10 | 1990–2016 |
Gianquitti v. Sheppard
green
2 sentences2001See Ferryman v. Groton, supra, 212 Conn. 144 -45; Gianquitti v. Sheppard, 53 Conn. App. 72 , 80 , 728 A.2d 1133 . "[W]hen the third party, in a suit by the employee, seeks recovery over against a contributorily negligent employer, contribution [or indemnification] is ordinarily denied on the ground that the employer cannot be said to be jointly liable in tort to the employee because of the operation of the exclusive-remedy clause [of the Workers' Compensation Act]. 2001See Ferryman v. Groton, supra, 212 Conn. 144 -45; Gianquitti v. Sheppard, 53 Conn. App. 72 , 80 , 728 A.2d 1133 . "[W]hen the third party, in a suit by the employee, seeks recovery over against a contributorily negligent employer, contribution [or indemnification] is ordinarily denied on the ground that the employer cannot be said to be jointly liable in tort to the employee because of the operation of the exclusive-remedy clause [of the Workers' Compensation Act]. | 1 | 2001–2001 |