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.
7 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burns v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2001In Burns v. Board of Education , 228 Conn. 640 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994), the Supreme Court shed light on what type of fact pattern characterizes "imminency" in the context of the exceptions to governmental immunity. 2001In Burns v. Board of Education , 228 Conn. 640 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994), the Supreme Court shed light on what type of fact pattern characterizes "imminency" in the context of the exceptions to governmental immunity. | 1 | 3 |
Grady v. Town of Somersgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 , 335–37, 984 A.2d 684 (2009). 2014See, e.g., Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 , 335–37, 984 A.2d 684 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Evon v. Andrews
green
2 sentences1997There are "three exceptions or circumstances under which liability may attach even though the act was discretionary: first, where the circumstances make it apparent to the public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm; . . . second, where a statute specifically provides a cause of action against a municipality or a municipal officer for failure to enforce certain laws; . . . and third, where the alleged acts involve malice, wantonness or intent to injure rather than negligence." CT Page 4017 (Citations omitted; emphasis added.) 1992Evon v. Andrews, 211 Conn. 501 , 505 . | 2 | 1992–1997 |
Colon v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence2006Id., at 180, 758 A.2d 900 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.