thrust challenge in Connecticut

2002With respect to the fact that the equipment utilized in the operative procedure was separately billed to the plaintiff, the court agrees with the statement contained in Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, 542 Pa. 526 , 530 , 668 A.2d 521 (1995) where the court stated "the thrust of the inquiry is thus not whether a separate consideration is charged for the physical material used in the exercise of medical skill but what service is performed to restore or maintain the patient's health." Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Fifth Count is hereby granted as to the defend

2002With respect to the fact that the equipment utilized in the operative procedure was separately billed to the plaintiff, the court agrees with the statement contained in Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, 542 Pa. 526 , 530 , 668 A.2d 521 (1995) where the court stated "the thrust of the inquiry is thus not whether a separate consideration is charged for the physical material used in the exercise of medical skill but what service is performed to restore or maintain the patient's health." Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Fifth Count is hereby granted as to the defend

1988“When the thrust of the challenge is that the act violates article first, § 1, of the state constitution, the plaintiffs have demonstrated such invalidity if they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation ‘directs the granting of an emolument or privilege to an individual or class without any purpose, expressed or apparent, to serve the public welfare thereby.’ Warner v. Gabb, 139 Conn. 310, 313 , 93 A.2d 487 [1952]; Carilli v. Pension Commission, 154 Conn. 1, 6-7 , 220 A.2d 439 [1966].” Wilson v. Connecticut Product Development Corporation, 167 Conn. 111, 115 , 355 A.2d 72 (1974

1988“When the thrust of the challenge is that the act violates article first, § 1, of the state constitution, the plaintiffs have demonstrated such invalidity if they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation ‘directs the granting of an emolument or privilege to an individual or class without any purpose, expressed or apparent, to serve the public welfare thereby.’ Warner v. Gabb, 139 Conn. 310, 313 , 93 A.2d 487 [1952]; Carilli v. Pension Commission, 154 Conn. 1, 6-7 , 220 A.2d 439 [1966].” Wilson v. Connecticut Product Development Corporation, 167 Conn. 111, 115 , 355 A.2d 72 (1974

1988“When the thrust of the challenge is that the act violates article first, § 1, of the state constitution, the plaintiffs have demonstrated such invalidity if they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation ‘directs the granting of an emolument or privilege to an individual or class without any purpose, expressed or apparent, to serve the public welfare thereby.’ Warner v. Gabb, 139 Conn. 310, 313 , 93 A.2d 487 [1952]; Carilli v. Pension Commission, 154 Conn. 1, 6-7 , 220 A.2d 439 [1966].” Wilson v. Connecticut Product Development Corporation, 167 Conn. 111, 115 , 355 A.2d 72 (1974

1988“When the thrust of the challenge is that the act violates article first, § 1, of the state constitution, the plaintiffs have demonstrated such invalidity if they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation ‘directs the granting of an emolument or privilege to an individual or class without any purpose, expressed or apparent, to serve the public welfare thereby.’ Warner v. Gabb, 139 Conn. 310, 313 , 93 A.2d 487 [1952]; Carilli v. Pension Commission, 154 Conn. 1, 6-7 , 220 A.2d 439 [1966].” Wilson v. Connecticut Product Development Corporation, 167 Conn. 111, 115 , 355 A.2d 72 (1974

2017The thrust of this instruction "was not to change any juror's attitude or approach to the deliberations." State v. Moore , 34 Conn.App. 411 , 418, 641 A.2d 804 (instruction to jurors to continue deliberations because, in judge's experience, it was too soon to declare deadlock was not Chip Smith charge), cert. denied, 230 Conn. 914 , 645 A.2d 1020 (1994).

2017The thrust of this instruction "was not to change any juror's attitude or approach to the deliberations." State v. Moore , 34 Conn.App. 411 , 418, 641 A.2d 804 (instruction to jurors to continue deliberations because, in judge's experience, it was too soon to declare deadlock was not Chip Smith charge), cert. denied, 230 Conn. 914 , 645 A.2d 1020 (1994).

2017The thrust of this instruction "was not to change any juror's attitude or approach to the deliberations." State v. Moore , 34 Conn.App. 411 , 418, 641 A.2d 804 (instruction to jurors to continue deliberations because, in judge's experience, it was too soon to declare deadlock was not Chip Smith charge), cert. denied, 230 Conn. 914 , 645 A.2d 1020 (1994).

2017The thrust of this instruction "was not to change any juror's attitude or approach to the deliberations." State v. Moore , 34 Conn.App. 411 , 418, 641 A.2d 804 (instruction to jurors to continue deliberations because, in judge's experience, it was too soon to declare deadlock was not Chip Smith charge), cert. denied, 230 Conn. 914 , 645 A.2d 1020 (1994).

2009Id., 355-57 .

2004A Turning first to the expansive causation claim set forth by the plaintiffs, we interpret the primary thrust of that claim to be that “[although [the trial court] correctly set forth the legal standard regarding proximate cause [the court] did not correctly apply the substantial factor test to the evidence.” 24 We disagree. “[P]roximate cause [is] defined as an actual cause that is a substantial factor in the resulting harm . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Doe v. Manheimer, 212 Conn. 748, 757 , 563 A.2d 699 (1989), overruled in part on other grounds, Stewart v. Federated Dept.

2004A Turning first to the expansive causation claim set forth by the plaintiffs, we interpret the primary thrust of that claim to be that “[although [the trial court] correctly set forth the legal standard regarding proximate cause [the court] did not correctly apply the substantial factor test to the evidence.” 24 We disagree. “[P]roximate cause [is] defined as an actual cause that is a substantial factor in the resulting harm . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Doe v. Manheimer, 212 Conn. 748, 757 , 563 A.2d 699 (1989), overruled in part on other grounds, Stewart v. Federated Dept.

2004Stores, Inc., 234 Conn. 597, 608 , 662 A.2d 753 (1995).

2004Stores, Inc., 234 Conn. 597, 608 , 662 A.2d 753 (1995).

2002A nuisance, however, "describes an inherently dangerous condition that has a natural tendency to inflict injury upon persons or property." Quinnett v. Newman , 213 Conn. 343 , 348 , 568 A.2d 786 (1990).

2002A nuisance, however, "describes an inherently dangerous condition that has a natural tendency to inflict injury upon persons or property." Quinnett v. Newman , 213 Conn. 343 , 348 , 568 A.2d 786 (1990).

1998"The thrust of the defense counsel's argument to the jury was that any claim for damages based on subjective complaints of pain was probably fabricated and fraudulent." Id. 409 , see also Meadows v. Vignault , 152 Conn. 708 , 206 A.2d 840 (1965).

1998"The thrust of the defense counsel's argument to the jury was that any claim for damages based on subjective complaints of pain was probably fabricated and fraudulent." Id. 409 , see also Meadows v. Vignault , 152 Conn. 708 , 206 A.2d 840 (1965).

1998"The thrust of the defense counsel's argument to the jury was that any claim for damages based on subjective complaints of pain was probably fabricated and fraudulent." Id. 409 , see also Meadows v. Vignault , 152 Conn. 708 , 206 A.2d 840 (1965).

1988“When the thrust of the challenge is that the act violates article first, § 1, of the state constitution, the plaintiffs have demonstrated such invalidity if they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation ‘directs the granting of an emolument or privilege to an individual or class without any purpose, expressed or apparent, to serve the public welfare thereby.’ Warner v. Gabb, 139 Conn. 310, 313 , 93 A.2d 487 [1952]; Carilli v. Pension Commission, 154 Conn. 1, 6-7 , 220 A.2d 439 [1966].” Wilson v. Connecticut Product Development Corporation, 167 Conn. 111, 115 , 355 A.2d 72 (1974

1988“When the thrust of the challenge is that the act violates article first, § 1, of the state constitution, the plaintiffs have demonstrated such invalidity if they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislation ‘directs the granting of an emolument or privilege to an individual or class without any purpose, expressed or apparent, to serve the public welfare thereby.’ Warner v. Gabb, 139 Conn. 310, 313 , 93 A.2d 487 [1952]; Carilli v. Pension Commission, 154 Conn. 1, 6-7 , 220 A.2d 439 [1966].” Wilson v. Connecticut Product Development Corporation, 167 Conn. 111, 115 , 355 A.2d 72 (1974