69 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1878–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bigelow Co. v. Waselikgreen2 sentences2010Wilful misconduct includes deliberate disobedience or the intentional violation of a known rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Todd v. Administrator, supra, 5 Conn. App. 312 ; see also Bigelow Co. v. Waselik, 133 Conn. 304, 308 , 50 A.2d 769 (1946) (“The breach of a rule by one who knows at the time that he is breaking the rule is a wilful breach .... 2010Wilful misconduct includes deliberate disobedience or the intentional violation of a known rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Todd v. Administrator, supra, 5 Conn. App. 312 ; see also Bigelow Co. v. Waselik, 133 Conn. 304, 308 , 50 A.2d 769 (1946) (“The breach of a rule by one who knows at the time that he is breaking the rule is a wilful breach .... | 2 | 6 |
Dias v. Gradygreen2 sentences2023In other words, the written opinion must state the similar health care provider’s opinion as to the applicable standard of care, the fact that the standard of care was breached, and the factual basis of the similar health care provider’s conclusion concerning the breach of the standard of care’’ because ‘‘a blanket requirement mandating a more onerous or stringent standard would serve to deter not only frivolous lawsuits but some meritorious ones, as well, a result that the legislature did not intend to achieve.’’ Wilcox v. Schwartz, 303 Conn. 630 , 643–44, 37 A.3d 133 (2012); see Dias v. Grad 2023In other words, the written opinion must state the similar health care provider’s opinion as to the applicable standard of care, the fact that the standard of care was breached, and the factual basis of the similar health care provider’s conclusion concerning the breach of the standard of care’’ because ‘‘a blanket requirement mandating a more onerous or stringent standard would serve to deter not only frivolous lawsuits but some meritorious ones, as well, a result that the legislature did not intend to achieve.’’ Wilcox v. Schwartz, 303 Conn. 630 , 643–44, 37 A.3d 133 (2012); see Dias v. Grad | 2 | 2 |
Doe v. Yale Universitygreen2 sentences2003“Except in the unusual case where the want of care or skill is so gross that it presents an almost conclusive inference of want of care . . . the testimony of an expert witness is necessary to establish both the standard of proper professional skill or care on the part of a physician . . . and that the defendant failed to conform to that standard of care.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Doe v. Yale University, 252 Conn. 641, 687 , 748 A.2d 834 (2000). 2003“Except in the unusual case where the want of care or skill is so gross that it presents an almost conclusive inference of want of care . . . the testimony of an expert witness is necessary to establish both the standard of proper professional skill or care on the part of a physician . . . and that the defendant failed to conform to that standard of care.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Doe v. Yale University, 252 Conn. 641, 687 , 748 A.2d 834 (2000). | 1 | 3 |
Davis v. Margolisgreen2 sentences2009“The requirement of expert testimony in malpractice cases serves to assist lay people, such as members of the jury and the presiding judge, to understand the applicable standard of care and to evaluate the [attorney’s] actions in light of that standard.” Davis v. Margolis, 215 Conn. 408, 416 , 576 A.2d 489 (1990). *451 Furthermore, even if we were to assume arguendo that the plaintiff could have established a breach of the standard of care without the aid of expert testimony, we also would have to conclude that without the aid of such testimony it would not have been reasonably possible for th 2009“The requirement of expert testimony in malpractice cases serves to assist lay people, such as members of the jury and the presiding judge, to understand the applicable standard of care and to evaluate the [attorney’s] actions in light of that standard.” Davis v. Margolis, 215 Conn. 408, 416 , 576 A.2d 489 (1990). *451 Furthermore, even if we were to assume arguendo that the plaintiff could have established a breach of the standard of care without the aid of expert testimony, we also would have to conclude that without the aid of such testimony it would not have been reasonably possible for th | 1 | 2 |
Struckman v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2007Although we acknowledge that an expert opinion need not walk us through the precise language of causation, there must be more than mere *776 speculation or conjecture. 4 State v. Nunes, 260 Conn. 649, 672-73 , 800 A.2d 1160 (2002); Struckman v. Burns, 205 Conn. 542, 554-55 , 534 A.2d 888 (1987). 2007Although we acknowledge that an expert opinion need not walk us through the precise language of causation, there must be more than mere *776 speculation or conjecture. 4 State v. Nunes, 260 Conn. 649, 672-73 , 800 A.2d 1160 (2002); Struckman v. Burns, 205 Conn. 542, 554-55 , 534 A.2d 888 (1987). | 1 | 2 |
Rosa v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2022Likewise, [e]xpert medical opinion evidence is usually required to show the cause of an injury or dis- ease because the medical effect on the human system of the infliction of injuries is generally not within the sphere of the common knowledge of the lay person.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Procaccini v. Lawrence + Memorial Hospital, Inc., supra, 175 Conn. App. 717–18; see also Rosa v. Law- rence & Memorial Hospital, 145 Conn. App. 275, 303 , 74 A.3d 534 (2013); Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702 , 717–18, 596 A.2d 1318 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 933 , 2022Likewise, [e]xpert medical opinion evidence is usually required to show the cause of an injury or dis- ease because the medical effect on the human system of the infliction of injuries is generally not within the sphere of the common knowledge of the lay person.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Procaccini v. Lawrence + Memorial Hospital, Inc., supra, 175 Conn. App. 717–18; see also Rosa v. Law- rence & Memorial Hospital, 145 Conn. App. 275, 303 , 74 A.3d 534 (2013); Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702 , 717–18, 596 A.2d 1318 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 933 , | 1 | 1 |
| Dorreman v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Concerned Citizens for the Protection of Watertown, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Byrne v. Grassogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alexander v. Turtur & Associates, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wrightgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Grimm v. Grimmgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Grimm v. Grimmgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Oglesby v. Indianagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kotyk v. Wardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United Steelworkers v. Cherokee Electric Cooperativegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ed Carlsen, Special Administrator of the Estate of Donna Marie Carlsen, Deceased v. A. J. Javurek, M.D.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bowers v. Bowersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Trimel v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital Rehabilitation Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Trimel v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital Rehabilitation Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matyas v. Minckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pogoso v. Saraered2 sentences2021But see Pogoso v. Sarae, 138 Haw. 518 , 525–26, 382 P.3d 330 (App. 2016) (citing authorities indicating split among states on this point and adopting negligence standard of care, despite statute with ‘‘reckless disregard’’ language), cert. dismissed, Docket No. SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2017 WL 679187 (Haw. 2021But see Pogoso v. Sarae, 138 Haw. 518 , 525–26, 382 P.3d 330 (App. 2016) (citing authorities indicating split among states on this point and adopting negligence standard of care, despite statute with ‘‘reckless disregard’’ language), cert. dismissed, Docket No. SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2017 WL 679187 (Haw. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gold v. Greenwich Hospital Ass'n
green
2 sentences2019Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 254-55 , 811 A.2d 1266 . 2019Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 254-55 , 811 A.2d 1266 . | 8 | 2003–2019 |
Stowe v. McHugh
green
2 sentences2002Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard." Stowe v. McHugh, 46 Conn. App. 391 , 397 (1997) quoting Williams v. Chameides, 26 Conn. App. 818 , 822-23 (1992). 2001Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stowe v. McHugh, 46 Conn. App. 391, 397 , 699 A.2d 279 , cert, denied, 243 Conn. 932 , 701 A.2d 662 (1997). | 4 | 2000–2002 |
Amsden v. Fischer
green
2 sentences2003Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Amsden v. Fischer, 62 Conn. App. 323, 331 , 771 A.2d 233 (2001); see also Trimel v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital Rehabilitation Center, 61 Conn. App. 353, 357-58 , 764 A.2d 203 , appeal dismissed, 258 Conn. 711 , 784 A.2d 889 (2001). 2003Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Amsden v. Fischer, 62 Conn. App. 323, 331 , 771 A.2d 233 (2001); see also Trimel v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital Rehabilitation Center, 61 Conn. App. 353, 357-58 , 764 A.2d 203 , appeal dismissed, 258 Conn. 711 , 784 A.2d 889 (2001). | 3 | 2001–2003 |
Williams v. Chameides
green
2 sentences2002Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard." Stowe v. McHugh, 46 Conn. App. 391 , 397 (1997) quoting Williams v. Chameides, 26 Conn. App. 818 , 822-23 (1992). 2000Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard.' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Williams v. Chameides , 26 Conn. App. 818 , 822-23 , 603 A.2d 1211 [cert. denied, 221 Conn. 923 , 608 A.2d 689 ] (1992)." Stowe v. McHugh , 46 Conn. App. 391 , 397 , 699 A.2d 279 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 932 , 701 A.2d 662 (1997). | 3 | 1997–2002 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2001Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stowe v. McHugh, 46 Conn. App. 391, 397 , 699 A.2d 279 , cert, denied, 243 Conn. 932 , 701 A.2d 662 (1997). 2001Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stowe v. McHugh, 46 Conn. App. 391, 397 , 699 A.2d 279 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 932 , 701 A.2d 662 (1997). | 3 | 2000–2001 |
Stowe v. McHugh
green
2 sentences2001Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stowe v. McHugh, 46 Conn. App. 391, 397 , 699 A.2d 279 , cert, denied, 243 Conn. 932 , 701 A.2d 662 (1997). 2001Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stowe v. McHugh, 46 Conn. App. 391, 397 , 699 A.2d 279 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 932 , 701 A.2d 662 (1997). | 3 | 2000–2001 |
Mather v. Griffin Hospital
green
2 sentences2000See also Doe v. Yale University , 252 Conn. 641 , 687-89 , 689 , ___ A.2d ___ (2000); Mather v. Griffin Hospital , 207 Conn. 125 , 130-31 , 540 A.2d 666 (1988); Campbell v. Palmer , 20 Conn. App. 544 , 548 , 568 A.2d 1064 (1990). 2000See also Doe v. Yale University , 252 Conn. 641 , 687-89 , 689 , ___ A.2d ___ (2000); Mather v. Griffin Hospital , 207 Conn. 125 , 130-31 , 540 A.2d 666 (1988); Campbell v. Palmer , 20 Conn. App. 544 , 548 , 568 A.2d 1064 (1990). | 3 | 1992–2000 |
Wilcox v. Schwartz
green
2 sentences2023In other words, the written opinion must state the similar health care provider’s opinion as to the applicable standard of care, the fact that the standard of care was breached, and the factual basis of the similar health care provider’s conclusion concerning the breach of the standard of care’’ because ‘‘a blanket requirement mandating a more onerous or stringent standard would serve to deter not only frivolous lawsuits but some meritorious ones, as well, a result that the legislature did not intend to achieve.’’ Wilcox v. Schwartz, 303 Conn. 630 , 643–44, 37 A.3d 133 (2012); see Dias v. Grad 2023In other words, the written opinion must state the similar health care provider’s opinion as to the applicable standard of care, the fact that the standard of care was breached, and the factual basis of the similar health care provider’s conclusion concerning the breach of the standard of care’’ because ‘‘a blanket requirement mandating a more onerous or stringent standard would serve to deter not only frivolous lawsuits but some meritorious ones, as well, a result that the legislature did not intend to achieve.’’ Wilcox v. Schwartz, 303 Conn. 630 , 643–44, 37 A.3d 133 (2012); see Dias v. Grad | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Dubreuil v. Witt
green
2 sentences2012Relying on Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn.App. 410, 421-22 , 835 A.2d 477 (2003), aff'd, 271 Conn. 782 , 860 A.2d 698 (2004), in which the Appellate Court indicated that "there may be no expert who knows more about the practice of law before the Superior Court than a judge of that court," the plaintiff contends that, logically, no expert knows more about the practice of law before the appellate courts than the justices of the Supreme Court. 2004The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 80 Conn. App. 410 (AC 23915), is granted, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, in a legal malpractice action tried to the court, the plaintiff need not present expert testimony regarding the defendant’s breach of the standard of care because the court is aware of the standard of care and of what constitutes a breach of that standard?” Decided March 1, 2004 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17143. | 2 | 2004–2012 |
Vitone v. Waterbury Hospital
green
2 sentences2011Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vitone v. Waterbury Hospital, 88 Conn. App. 347 , 351 n.5, 869 A.2d 672 (2005). 4 Because the claim that a plaintiffs expert must be deposed prior to a defendant is not properly before this court, we do not review that claim, nor do we review the applicability of Sullivan . 5 In her objection to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that the relevant inquiry was whether she would be able t 2011Generally, expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care to which the defendant is held and the breach of that standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vitone v. Waterbury Hospital, 88 Conn. App. 347 , 351 n.5, 869 A.2d 672 (2005). 4 Because the claim that a plaintiffs expert must be deposed prior to a defendant is not properly before this court, we do not review that claim, nor do we review the applicability of Sullivan . 5 In her objection to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that the relevant inquiry was whether she would be able t | 2 | 2008–2011 |
Cross v. Huttenlocher
green
2 sentences2011“Finally, in Blanchette and [Cross v. Huttenlocher, 185 Conn. 390 , 440 A.2d 952 (1981)], the plaintiffs presented expert testimony that the defendants’ omissions amounted to a breach of the standard of care. 2011“Finally, in Blanchette and [Cross v. Huttenlocher, 185 Conn. 390 , 440 A.2d 952 (1981)], the plaintiffs presented expert testimony that the defendants’ omissions amounted to a breach of the standard of care. | 2 | 1992–2011 |
Campbell v. Palmer
green
2 sentences2000See also Doe v. Yale University , 252 Conn. 641 , 687-89 , 689 , ___ A.2d ___ (2000); Mather v. Griffin Hospital , 207 Conn. 125 , 130-31 , 540 A.2d 666 (1988); Campbell v. Palmer , 20 Conn. App. 544 , 548 , 568 A.2d 1064 (1990). 2000See also Doe v. Yale University , 252 Conn. 641 , 687-89 , 689 , ___ A.2d ___ (2000); Mather v. Griffin Hospital , 207 Conn. 125 , 130-31 , 540 A.2d 666 (1988); Campbell v. Palmer , 20 Conn. App. 544 , 548 , 568 A.2d 1064 (1990). | 2 | 1996–2000 |
Barrett v. Danbury Hospital
green
2 sentences1998Barrett v. Danbury Hospital , 232 Conn. 242 , 252-53 , 654 A.2d 748 (1995). 1998Barrett v. Danbury Hospital , 232 Conn. 242 , 252-53 , 654 A.2d 748 (1995). | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Bicio v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2025You may or may not decide that [Gersten] is an expert, and you may or may not decide that he established the applicable standard of care.’’ Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 16 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Zhuleku v. Naugatuck Valley Radiology Associates marks omitted) Walencewicz v. Jealous Monk, LLC, supra, 228 Conn. App. 380 ; or to avoid abandoning the claim due to inadequate briefing.11 See, e.g., MacDer- mid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726, 749 , 183 A.3d 611 (2018) (rejecting claims of instructional error as inadequately briefed because ‘‘the defendant’s harm analyses consist of only cursory s 2025You may or may not decide that [Gersten] is an expert, and you may or may not decide that he established the applicable standard of care.’’ Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 16 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Zhuleku v. Naugatuck Valley Radiology Associates marks omitted) Walencewicz v. Jealous Monk, LLC, supra, 228 Conn. App. 380 ; or to avoid abandoning the claim due to inadequate briefing.11 See, e.g., MacDer- mid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726, 749 , 183 A.3d 611 (2018) (rejecting claims of instructional error as inadequately briefed because ‘‘the defendant’s harm analyses consist of only cursory s | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Farmer-Lanctot v. Shand
green
2 sentences2025You may or may not decide that [Gersten] is an expert, and you may or may not decide that he established the applicable standard of care.’’ Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 16 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Zhuleku v. Naugatuck Valley Radiology Associates marks omitted) Walencewicz v. Jealous Monk, LLC, supra, 228 Conn. App. 380 ; or to avoid abandoning the claim due to inadequate briefing.11 See, e.g., MacDer- mid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726, 749 , 183 A.3d 611 (2018) (rejecting claims of instructional error as inadequately briefed because ‘‘the defendant’s harm analyses consist of only cursory s 2025You may or may not decide that [Gersten] is an expert, and you may or may not decide that he established the applicable standard of care.’’ Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 16 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Zhuleku v. Naugatuck Valley Radiology Associates marks omitted) Walencewicz v. Jealous Monk, LLC, supra, 228 Conn. App. 380 ; or to avoid abandoning the claim due to inadequate briefing.11 See, e.g., MacDer- mid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726, 749 , 183 A.3d 611 (2018) (rejecting claims of instructional error as inadequately briefed because ‘‘the defendant’s harm analyses consist of only cursory s | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Macdermid, Inc. v. Leonetti
green
2 sentences2025You may or may not decide that [Gersten] is an expert, and you may or may not decide that he established the applicable standard of care.’’ Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 16 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Zhuleku v. Naugatuck Valley Radiology Associates marks omitted) Walencewicz v. Jealous Monk, LLC, supra, 228 Conn. App. 380 ; or to avoid abandoning the claim due to inadequate briefing.11 See, e.g., MacDer- mid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726, 749 , 183 A.3d 611 (2018) (rejecting claims of instructional error as inadequately briefed because ‘‘the defendant’s harm analyses consist of only cursory s 2025You may or may not decide that [Gersten] is an expert, and you may or may not decide that he established the applicable standard of care.’’ Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 16 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Zhuleku v. Naugatuck Valley Radiology Associates marks omitted) Walencewicz v. Jealous Monk, LLC, supra, 228 Conn. App. 380 ; or to avoid abandoning the claim due to inadequate briefing.11 See, e.g., MacDer- mid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726, 749 , 183 A.3d 611 (2018) (rejecting claims of instructional error as inadequately briefed because ‘‘the defendant’s harm analyses consist of only cursory s | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Headley
green
1 sentence2022Likewise, [e]xpert medical opinion evidence is usually required to show the cause of an injury or dis- ease because the medical effect on the human system of the infliction of injuries is generally not within the sphere of the common knowledge of the lay person.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Procaccini v. Lawrence + Memorial Hospital, Inc., supra, 175 Conn. App. 717–18; see also Rosa v. Law- rence & Memorial Hospital, 145 Conn. App. 275, 303 , 74 A.3d 534 (2013); Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702 , 717–18, 596 A.2d 1318 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 933 , | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital
green
1 sentence2022Likewise, [e]xpert medical opinion evidence is usually required to show the cause of an injury or dis- ease because the medical effect on the human system of the infliction of injuries is generally not within the sphere of the common knowledge of the lay person.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Procaccini v. Lawrence + Memorial Hospital, Inc., supra, 175 Conn. App. 717–18; see also Rosa v. Law- rence & Memorial Hospital, 145 Conn. App. 275, 303 , 74 A.3d 534 (2013); Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702 , 717–18, 596 A.2d 1318 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 933 , | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital
green
2 sentences2022Likewise, [e]xpert medical opinion evidence is usually required to show the cause of an injury or dis- ease because the medical effect on the human system of the infliction of injuries is generally not within the sphere of the common knowledge of the lay person.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Procaccini v. Lawrence + Memorial Hospital, Inc., supra, 175 Conn. App. 717–18; see also Rosa v. Law- rence & Memorial Hospital, 145 Conn. App. 275, 303 , 74 A.3d 534 (2013); Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702 , 717–18, 596 A.2d 1318 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 933 , 2022Likewise, [e]xpert medical opinion evidence is usually required to show the cause of an injury or dis- ease because the medical effect on the human system of the infliction of injuries is generally not within the sphere of the common knowledge of the lay person.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Procaccini v. Lawrence + Memorial Hospital, Inc., supra, 175 Conn. App. 717–18; see also Rosa v. Law- rence & Memorial Hospital, 145 Conn. App. 275, 303 , 74 A.3d 534 (2013); Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702 , 717–18, 596 A.2d 1318 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 933 , | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Curran v. Kroll
green
2 sentences2022In Curran v. Kroll, 303 Conn. 845, 855 , 37 A.3d 700 (2012), the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the basis that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence of a breach of the standard of care in a medical malpractice action. 2022In Curran v. Kroll, 303 Conn. 845, 855 , 37 A.3d 700 (2012), the trial court granted the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the basis that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence of a breach of the standard of care in a medical malpractice action. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Procaccini v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020Likewise, [e]xpert medical opinion evidence is usually required to show the cause of an injury or disease because the medical effect on the human system of the infliction of injuries is generally not within the sphere of the common knowl- edge of the lay person.’’7 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Procaccini v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc., 175 Conn. App. 692 , 717–18, 168 A.3d 538 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 960 , 172 A.3d 801 (2017). 2020Likewise, [e]xpert medical opinion evidence is usually required to show the cause of an injury or disease because the medical effect on the human system of the infliction of injuries is generally not within the sphere of the common knowl- edge of the lay person.’’7 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Procaccini v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc., 175 Conn. App. 692 , 717–18, 168 A.3d 538 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 960 , 172 A.3d 801 (2017). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Procaccini v. Lawrence & Mem'l Hosp., Inc. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Franklin green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. ROY D. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN v. Martin
green
1 sentence2020In Housing Authority v. Martin, 95 Conn. App. 802, 814 , 898 A.2d 245 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904 , 907 A.2d 90 (2006), we held that a landlord is required to provide only the statutorily required notices. ‘‘[Section 47a-15] indicates that the landlord shall deliver a written notice to the tenant . . . specifying the breach or violation, that the tenant has fifteen days to remedy the breach if it can be remedied and that the rental agreement shall not terminate if a breach is remedied within the cure period. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Housing Authority of New Haven v. Martin
green
2 sentences2020In Housing Authority v. Martin, 95 Conn. App. 802, 814 , 898 A.2d 245 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904 , 907 A.2d 90 (2006), we held that a landlord is required to provide only the statutorily required notices. ‘‘[Section 47a-15] indicates that the landlord shall deliver a written notice to the tenant . . . specifying the breach or violation, that the tenant has fifteen days to remedy the breach if it can be remedied and that the rental agreement shall not terminate if a breach is remedied within the cure period. 2020In Housing Authority v. Martin, 95 Conn. App. 802, 814 , 898 A.2d 245 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904 , 907 A.2d 90 (2006), we held that a landlord is required to provide only the statutorily required notices. ‘‘[Section 47a-15] indicates that the landlord shall deliver a written notice to the tenant . . . specifying the breach or violation, that the tenant has fifteen days to remedy the breach if it can be remedied and that the rental agreement shall not terminate if a breach is remedied within the cure period. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Kalams v. Giacchetto green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Distefano v. Milardo green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Vona v. Lerner green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| DiStefano v. Milardo green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Lewis v. Commissioner green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Vona v. Lerner green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Dixon v. BROMSON AND REINER green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Person green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Shegog v. Zabrecky green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Shegog v. Zabrecky green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Curry v. Burns green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. White green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Vlahakis v. Illinois green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| A. Wichman & Son v. Fox green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.
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.