defendants argue claim in Connecticut

2018Relying on Norwich v. Norwalk Wilbert Vault Co ., 208 Conn. 1 , 4, 544 A.2d 152 (1988), the defendants argue that they excusably bypassed available administrative relief, specifically, appealing to the board, because "a constitutional question is involved and obtaining relief from the [board] would be futile." In this regard, the defendants argue that the question of whether any constitutionally protected nonconforming uses existed was beyond the scope of review by the board and that "this case presents a constitutional question as to whether the plaintiff can eliminate a constitutionally prot

2018Relying on Norwich v. Norwalk Wilbert Vault Co ., 208 Conn. 1 , 4, 544 A.2d 152 (1988), the defendants argue that they excusably bypassed available administrative relief, specifically, appealing to the board, because "a constitutional question is involved and obtaining relief from the [board] would be futile." In this regard, the defendants argue that the question of whether any constitutionally protected nonconforming uses existed was beyond the scope of review by the board and that "this case presents a constitutional question as to whether the plaintiff can eliminate a constitutionally prot

2002"In Logan v. Greenwich Hospital Assn ., supra, 292, we held that informed consent involves four specific factors: (1) the nature of the procedure; (2) the risks and hazards of the procedure; (3) the alternatives to the procedure; and (4) the anticipated benefits of the procedure." Alswanger v. Smego , 257 Conn. 58 , 67-68 (2001).

2001The plaintiff acknowledges that it did not seek, and therefore did not obtain, the permission of the claims commissioner to maintain this action. 2 Rather it argues that sovereign immunity does not act as a bar to this action because: 1) the defendants were acting in excess of their statutory authority as defined in Antineralla v. Rioux, 229 Conn. 479 (1994); and 2) the named defendants are subject to liability in their individual capacities, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-165 because CT Page 13468-bs their actions were reckless and/or wanton.

2001The court agrees with the defendants' conclusion that summary judgment should be granted. 12 In order to establish the existence of intentional infliction of emotional distress, "it must be shown: (1) that the actor intended to inflict emotional distress or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) that the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that the defendant's conduct was the cause of the plaintiff's distress; and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was severe." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omi

2001The court agrees with the defendants' conclusion that summary judgment should be granted. 12 In order to establish the existence of intentional infliction of emotional distress, "it must be shown: (1) that the actor intended to inflict emotional distress or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) that the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that the defendant's conduct was the cause of the plaintiff's distress; and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was severe." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omi

2000"The defense of laches has application only when there is established unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial delay in bringing suit." Castonguay v. Plourde , 46 Conn. App. 251 , 265 , 699 A.2d 226 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 931 , 701 A.2d 660 (1997).

2000"The defense of laches has application only when there is established unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial delay in bringing suit." Castonguay v. Plourde , 46 Conn. App. 251 , 265 , 699 A.2d 226 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 931 , 701 A.2d 660 (1997).

2000"The defense of laches has application only when there is established unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial delay in bringing suit." Castonguay v. Plourde , 46 Conn. App. 251 , 265 , 699 A.2d 226 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 931 , 701 A.2d 660 (1997).

2000"The defense of laches has application only when there is established unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial delay in bringing suit." Castonguay v. Plourde , 46 Conn. App. 251 , 265 , 699 A.2d 226 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 931 , 701 A.2d 660 (1997).

1998In order to establish the existence of a duty to inform, the plaintiff must show through expert testimony that the customary standard of care of physicians in the same practice as that of the defendant doctor was to obtain the patient's consent prior to performing any operation." Caron v. Adams, 33 Conn. App. 673 , 687 , 638 A.2d 1073 (1994).

1998In order to establish the existence of a duty to inform, the plaintiff must show through expert testimony that the customary standard of care of physicians in the same practice as that of the defendant doctor was to obtain the patient's consent prior to performing any operation." Caron v. Adams, 33 Conn. App. 673 , 687 , 638 A.2d 1073 (1994).

1994"The right to a prejudgment remedy of attachment is purely statutory." (Citations omitted.) Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. , 226 Conn. 757 , 766 , 628 A.2d 1303 (1993); see General Statutes §§ 52-278a through 52-278n ; see also Public Acts 1993, No. 93-431 (amending certain provisions of the Prejudgment Remedies Act).

1994"The right to a prejudgment remedy of attachment is purely statutory." (Citations omitted.) Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. , 226 Conn. 757 , 766 , 628 A.2d 1303 (1993); see General Statutes §§ 52-278a through 52-278n ; see also Public Acts 1993, No. 93-431 (amending certain provisions of the Prejudgment Remedies Act).

1989The defendants argue that this claim is not reviewable because it was not raised to the trial court and because the plaintiff does not present exceptional circumstances that would bring him under the rule of State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973).

1989The defendants argue that this claim is not reviewable because it was not raised to the trial court and because the plaintiff does not present exceptional circumstances that would bring him under the rule of State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973).

1785Under Connecticut common law, the plaintiff is not entitled to "damages awarded to the party alleging fraudulent conveyance beyond the property itself or the value of the property." Crepeau v. Gronager, supra , 41 Conn. App. 317 ; see also Derderian v. Derderian , 3 Conn. App. 522 , 529 , 490 A.2d 1008 (1985).