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.
9 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Evon v. Andrewsgreen2 sentences2017Outside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts. 15 Beyond that, although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition. 16 See, e.g., Cotto v. Board of Education , supra, 294 Conn. at 267-68, 279, 984 A.2d 58 (director of community based summer youth program located in public school was not identifiable person when he slipped in wet bathroom beca 2017Outside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts. 15 Beyond that, although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition. 16 See, e.g., Cotto v. Board of Education , supra, 294 Conn. at 267-68, 279, 984 A.2d 58 (director of community based summer youth program located in public school was not identifiable person when he slipped in wet bathroom beca | 2 | 3 |
Coe v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF TOWN OF WATERTOWNgreen2 sentences2017Outside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts. 15 Beyond that, although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition. 16 See, e.g., Cotto v. Board of Education , supra, 294 Conn. at 267-68, 279, 984 A.2d 58 (director of community based summer youth program located in public school was not identifiable person when he slipped in wet bathroom beca 2017Outside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts. 15 Beyond that, although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition. 16 See, e.g., Cotto v. Board of Education , supra, 294 Conn. at 267-68, 279, 984 A.2d 58 (director of community based summer youth program located in public school was not identifiable person when he slipped in wet bathroom beca | 2 | 2 |
Durrant v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF HARTFORDgreen2 sentences2017Outside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts. 15 Beyond that, although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition. 16 See, e.g., Cotto v. Board of Education , supra, 294 Conn. at 267-68, 279, 984 A.2d 58 (director of community based summer youth program located in public school was not identifiable person when he slipped in wet bathroom beca 2017Outside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts. 15 Beyond that, although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition. 16 See, e.g., Cotto v. Board of Education , supra, 294 Conn. at 267-68, 279, 984 A.2d 58 (director of community based summer youth program located in public school was not identifiable person when he slipped in wet bathroom beca | 1 | 2 |
Sestito v. City of Grotongreen2 sentences2021Pierre v. Plainfield, supra, 326 Conn. 436 ; see id., 436–37 and n.15 (discussing Sestito v. Groton, 178 Conn. 520 , 423 A.2d 165 (1979), and noting that, ‘‘[o]utside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts,’’ and, ‘‘although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifi- able person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition’’). 2021Pierre v. Plainfield, supra, 326 Conn. 436 ; see id., 436–37 and n.15 (discussing Sestito v. Groton, 178 Conn. 520 , 423 A.2d 165 (1979), and noting that, ‘‘[o]utside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts,’’ and, ‘‘although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifi- able person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition’’). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2019Pierre v. Plainfield, 326 Conn. 420 , 436–37, 165 A.3d 148 (2017); see also DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270 , 274–75, 869 A.2d 271 (plaintiff injured when tree fell on car while driving not identifiable victim because no requirement for her to drive on portion of roadway where accident occurred), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Animal Rights Front, Inc. v. Jacquesgreen1 sentence2019Pierre v. Plainfield, 326 Conn. 420 , 436–37, 165 A.3d 148 (2017); see also DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270 , 274–75, 869 A.2d 271 (plaintiff injured when tree fell on car while driving not identifiable victim because no requirement for her to drive on portion of roadway where accident occurred), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
DeConti v. McGlonegreen2 sentences2019Pierre v. Plainfield, 326 Conn. 420 , 436–37, 165 A.3d 148 (2017); see also DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270 , 274–75, 869 A.2d 271 (plaintiff injured when tree fell on car while driving not identifiable victim because no requirement for her to drive on portion of roadway where accident occurred), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005). 2019Pierre v. Plainfield, 326 Conn. 420 , 436–37, 165 A.3d 148 (2017); see also DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270 , 274–75, 869 A.2d 271 (plaintiff injured when tree fell on car while driving not identifiable victim because no requirement for her to drive on portion of roadway where accident occurred), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Cotto v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF NEW HAVENgreen2 sentences2017Outside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts. 15 Beyond that, although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition. 16 See, e.g., Cotto v. Board of Education , supra, 294 Conn. at 267-68, 279, 984 A.2d 58 (director of community based summer youth program located in public school was not identifiable person when he slipped in wet bathroom beca 2017Outside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts. 15 Beyond that, although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition. 16 See, e.g., Cotto v. Board of Education , supra, 294 Conn. at 267-68, 279, 984 A.2d 58 (director of community based summer youth program located in public school was not identifiable person when he slipped in wet bathroom beca | 1 | 1 |
Grady v. Town of Somersgreen2 sentences2017Outside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts. 15 Beyond that, although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition. 16 See, e.g., Cotto v. Board of Education , supra, 294 Conn. at 267-68, 279, 984 A.2d 58 (director of community based summer youth program located in public school was not identifiable person when he slipped in wet bathroom beca 2017Outside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts. 15 Beyond that, although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition. 16 See, e.g., Cotto v. Board of Education , supra, 294 Conn. at 267-68, 279, 984 A.2d 58 (director of community based summer youth program located in public school was not identifiable person when he slipped in wet bathroom beca | 1 | 1 |
Trzaska v. City of Hartfordgreen1 sentence2000Based upon the plaintiff's allegations, the court finds that it is not apparent from the face of the complaint either that the town and the board were engaged in a governmental duty; see Trzaska v. Hartford, supra, 302; or that they are not subject to liability under the imminent harm to an identifiable person exception to the qualified immunity for discretionary acts. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Prescott v. City of Meriden
green
2 sentences2017Outside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts. 15 Beyond that, although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition. 16 See, e.g., Cotto v. Board of Education , supra, 294 Conn. at 267-68, 279, 984 A.2d 58 (director of community based summer youth program located in public school was not identifiable person when he slipped in wet bathroom beca 2017Outside of the schoolchildren context, we have recognized an identifiable person under this exception in only one case that has since been limited to its facts. 15 Beyond that, although we have addressed claims that a plaintiff is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class of foreseeable victims in a number of cases, we have not broadened our definition. 16 See, e.g., Cotto v. Board of Education , supra, 294 Conn. at 267-68, 279, 984 A.2d 58 (director of community based summer youth program located in public school was not identifiable person when he slipped in wet bathroom beca | 2 | 2017–2017 |
St. Pierre v. Town of Plainfield
green
2 sentences2019Pierre v. Plainfield, 326 Conn. 420 , 436–37, 165 A.3d 148 (2017); see also DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270 , 274–75, 869 A.2d 271 (plaintiff injured when tree fell on car while driving not identifiable victim because no requirement for her to drive on portion of roadway where accident occurred), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005). 2019Pierre v. Plainfield, 326 Conn. 420 , 436–37, 165 A.3d 148 (2017); see also DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270 , 274–75, 869 A.2d 271 (plaintiff injured when tree fell on car while driving not identifiable victim because no requirement for her to drive on portion of roadway where accident occurred), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Martinez v. City of New Haven
green
2 sentences2018Our Supreme Court recently reviewed the law concerning governmental immunity regarding the imminent harm to an identifiable person exception in Martinez v. New Haven , 328 Conn. 1 , 176 A.3d 531 (2018). 2018Our Supreme Court recently reviewed the law concerning governmental immunity regarding the imminent harm to an identifiable person exception in Martinez v. New Haven , 328 Conn. 1 , 176 A.3d 531 (2018). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Leon-Zazueta
green
1 sentence2005In this opinion the other justices concurred. 1 We granted the plaintiffs’ petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the named plaintiff [Stephen Prescott] did not fall within the ‘imminent harm to an identifiable person’ exception to qualified immunity of a municipal employee?” Prescott v. Meriden, 268 Conn. 901 , 845 A.2d 405 (2004). 2 Stephen Prescott’s wife, Anne Prescott, also sought damages for loss of consortium. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Wortham
green
1 sentence2005In this opinion the other justices concurred. 1 We granted the plaintiffs’ petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the named plaintiff [Stephen Prescott] did not fall within the ‘imminent harm to an identifiable person’ exception to qualified immunity of a municipal employee?” Prescott v. Meriden, 268 Conn. 901 , 845 A.2d 405 (2004). 2 Stephen Prescott’s wife, Anne Prescott, also sought damages for loss of consortium. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Prescott v. City of Meriden
green
1 sentence2004The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 80 Conn. App. 697 (AC 23556), is granted, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the named plaintiff did not fall within the ‘imminent harm to an identifiable person’ exception to qualified immunity of a municipal employee?” Decided February 18, 2004 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17134. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.