Burns doctrine (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

Burns doctrine in Connecticut

6 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2014 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Colon v. Board of Educationgreen
conn · 2000 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014Compare Colon v. Board of Edu- cation, 60 Conn. App. 178, 187 , 758 A.2d 900 (risk of harm from opening door into school hallway was immi- nent because ‘‘danger presented was limited in dura- tion, as it could happen only when students are in the hallway in a dangerous spot’’), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000), with Haynes v. Middletown, supra, 142 Conn. App. 737 (risk of harm from jagged edge of broken locker to which students were exposed when they were in locker room for brief period after gym class was not imminent because harm could have happened at any future time or no

2014Compare Colon v. Board of Edu- cation, 60 Conn. App. 178, 187 , 758 A.2d 900 (risk of harm from opening door into school hallway was immi- nent because ‘‘danger presented was limited in dura- tion, as it could happen only when students are in the hallway in a dangerous spot’’), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000), with Haynes v. Middletown, supra, 142 Conn. App. 737 (risk of harm from jagged edge of broken locker to which students were exposed when they were in locker room for brief period after gym class was not imminent because harm could have happened at any future time or no

11
Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Tarrogreen
conn · 2000 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014Compare Colon v. Board of Edu- cation, 60 Conn. App. 178, 187 , 758 A.2d 900 (risk of harm from opening door into school hallway was immi- nent because ‘‘danger presented was limited in dura- tion, as it could happen only when students are in the hallway in a dangerous spot’’), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000), with Haynes v. Middletown, supra, 142 Conn. App. 737 (risk of harm from jagged edge of broken locker to which students were exposed when they were in locker room for brief period after gym class was not imminent because harm could have happened at any future time or no

2014Compare Colon v. Board of Edu- cation, 60 Conn. App. 178, 187 , 758 A.2d 900 (risk of harm from opening door into school hallway was immi- nent because ‘‘danger presented was limited in dura- tion, as it could happen only when students are in the hallway in a dangerous spot’’), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000), with Haynes v. Middletown, supra, 142 Conn. App. 737 (risk of harm from jagged edge of broken locker to which students were exposed when they were in locker room for brief period after gym class was not imminent because harm could have happened at any future time or no

11
Colon v. Board of Educationgreen
connappct · 2000 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014Compare Colon v. Board of Edu- cation, 60 Conn. App. 178, 187 , 758 A.2d 900 (risk of harm from opening door into school hallway was immi- nent because ‘‘danger presented was limited in dura- tion, as it could happen only when students are in the hallway in a dangerous spot’’), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000), with Haynes v. Middletown, supra, 142 Conn. App. 737 (risk of harm from jagged edge of broken locker to which students were exposed when they were in locker room for brief period after gym class was not imminent because harm could have happened at any future time or no

2014Compare Colon v. Board of Edu- cation, 60 Conn. App. 178, 187 , 758 A.2d 900 (risk of harm from opening door into school hallway was immi- nent because ‘‘danger presented was limited in dura- tion, as it could happen only when students are in the hallway in a dangerous spot’’), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000), with Haynes v. Middletown, supra, 142 Conn. App. 737 (risk of harm from jagged edge of broken locker to which students were exposed when they were in locker room for brief period after gym class was not imminent because harm could have happened at any future time or no

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Burns v. Board of Education green
conn · 1994
2 sentences

2007A careful reading of Burns reveals that the compulsion factor relied on so heavily by the majority is only one of multiple disjunctive guideposts to consider along with: (1) "the imminency of any potential harm"; (2) "the likelihood that harm will result from a failure to act with reasonable care"; (3) "the identifiability of the particular victim"; (4) "whether the legislature specifically designated an identifiable subclass as the intended beneficiaries of certain acts"; (5) "the seriousness of the injury threatened"; (6) "the duration of the threat of injury"; and (7) "whether the persons a

2007A careful reading of Burns reveals that the compulsion factor relied on so heavily by the majority is only one of multiple disjunctive guideposts to consider along with: (1) "the imminency of any potential harm"; (2) "the likelihood that harm will result from a failure to act with reasonable care"; (3) "the identifiability of the particular victim"; (4) "whether the legislature specifically designated an identifiable subclass as the intended beneficiaries of certain acts"; (5) "the seriousness of the injury threatened"; (6) "the duration of the threat of injury"; and (7) "whether the persons a

21997–2007
Prescott v. City of Meriden green
conn · 2005
2 sentences

2007Id., at 761-62 , 873 A.2d 175 . [The court], in applying the Burns doctrine, first concluded that the plaintiff, as the parent of a student, was not entitled to any special consideration in the face of dangerous conditions.

2007Id., at 761-62 , 873 A.2d 175 . [The court], in applying the Burns doctrine, first concluded that the plaintiff, as the parent of a student, was not entitled to any special consideration in the face of dangerous conditions.

22006–2007
Donnelly v. Ives green
conn · 1970
1 sentence

1991The Connecticut Supreme Court has declared that while a defect in the plan of a highway is generally not actionable, such a defect may be actionable where "the plan of construction adopted . . . was totally inadmissible . . . [such that] the highway would have been in such a defective condition as to have been out of repair from the beginning." Donnelly v. Ives, 159 Conn. 163 , 167 (1970).

11991–1991
State v. Harden green
conn · 1978
2 sentences

1981There has been no showing that access to the lost evidence would have materially aided Burns’ defense.” Id., 325; State v. Herndon, 175 Conn. 315, 327 , 398 A.2d 1169 (1978).

1981There has been no showing that access to the lost evidence would have materially aided Burns’ defense.” Id., 325; State v. Herndon, 175 Conn. 315, 327 , 398 A.2d 1169 (1978).

11981–1981

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TN 156 (1999–2022) MS 8 (1992–2016) GA 7 (1995–2022) FL 7 (1963–2025) CT 6 (1981–2014) NY 5 (1970–2017) TX 5 (1973–2017) CA 5 (1984–2026) MO 4 (1992–2014) WA 4 (2009–2025) PA 4 (1988–2025) OH 4 (2018–2026) MT 4 (1927–2013) IL 4 (1982–2021) VA 3 (2001–2010) KY 2 (2024–2025) MI 2 (2021–2025) NC 2 (2006–2025) SC 2 (2009–2022) UT 2 (1992–2000) AK 2 (1972–2024) LA 2 (1983–2003) AZ 2 (2014–2015) WI 2 (2011–2020) MA 2 (1997–2018)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check