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 1 courts 1994–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake
green
2 sentences2001With regard to the alleged "special relationship exception," the plaintiffs claim that "courts have found that a state actor's creation of the danger in an employment setting creates a "quasi-custodial' relationship with the plaintiff thereby establishing a duty to protect from that very danger introduced by the state actor/employer." The plaintiffs cite Cornelius v. Highland Lake , 880 F.2d 348 (11th Cir. 1989) to support this proposition. 2001With regard to the alleged "special relationship exception," the plaintiff's claim that "courts have found that a state actor's creation of the danger in an employment setting creates a `quasicustodial' relationship with the plaintiff thereby establishing a duty to protect from that very danger introduced by the state actor/employer." The plaintiffs cite Cornelius v. Highland Lake, 880 F.2d 348 (11 th Cir. CT Page 11220 1989) to support this proposition. | 5 | 2001–2001 |
Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1994The same court in Ying Jing Gan v. New York, 996 F.2d 522 , 533 (2d Cir. 1993), explains that DeShaney recognized two exceptions to the general rule: (a) the special relationship exception, and (b) the increase in vulnerability exception. | 1 | 1994–1994 |