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.
6 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dilullo v. Josephgreen2 sentences2008Moreover, we are mindful that [s]ubrogation is a highly favored doctrine . . . which courts should be inclined to extend rather than restrict.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wasko v. Manella, supra, 269 Conn. 542 -43. 4 Our Supreme Court previously has considered whether to allow an action for equitable subrogation by the insurer against an insured’s tenant; see DiLullo v. Joseph, 259 Conn. 847 , 792 A.2d 819 (2002); or against an insured’s social houseguest. 5 See Wasko v. Manella, supra, 269 Conn. 527 . 2008Moreover, we are mindful that [s]ubrogation is a highly favored doctrine . . . which courts should be inclined to extend rather than restrict.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wasko v. Manella, supra, 269 Conn. 542 -43. 4 Our Supreme Court previously has considered whether to allow an action for equitable subrogation by the insurer against an insured’s tenant; see DiLullo v. Joseph, 259 Conn. 847 , 792 A.2d 819 (2002); or against an insured’s social houseguest. 5 See Wasko v. Manella, supra, 269 Conn. 527 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wasko v. Manella
green
2 sentences2010Although "[s]ubrogation is a highly favored doctrine ... which courts *179 should be inclined to extend rather than restrict"; (internal quotation marks omitted) Wasko v. Manella, supra, 269 Conn. at 543 , 849 A.2d 777 ; "[t]here is no general rule to determine whether a right of subrogation exists. 2010Although "[s]ubrogation is a highly favored doctrine ... which courts *179 should be inclined to extend rather than restrict"; (internal quotation marks omitted) Wasko v. Manella, supra, 269 Conn. at 543 , 849 A.2d 777 ; "[t]here is no general rule to determine whether a right of subrogation exists. | 3 | 2005–2010 |
Westchester Fire Insurance v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences2016Co. , supra, 236 Conn. at 372 , 672 A.2d 939 ("[s]ubrogation is a highly favored doctrine ... which courts should be inclined to extend rather than restrict" [citations omitted] ). 2016Co. , supra, 236 Conn. at 372 , 672 A.2d 939 ("[s]ubrogation is a highly favored doctrine ... which courts should be inclined to extend rather than restrict" [citations omitted] ). | 2 | 2005–2016 |
Smith v. Clavey Ravinia Nurseries Inc.
green
2 sentences1996App. 548 , 69 N.E.2d 921 (1946); Standard Accident Ins. 1996Subrogation is a highly favored doctrine; Smith v. Clavey Ravinia Nurseries, Inc., 329 Ill. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.