6 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1938–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Byram Lumber & Supply Co. v. Page
green
2 sentences2001Byram Lumber Supply Co. v. Page , 109 Conn. 256 , 259-60 (1929) In order to ascertain the intent of the contracting parties, the court must, in turn, examine the language of the contract in issue: To determine the intent of the parties is a metter of interpretation of the contract. 1938Byram Lumber & Supply Co. v. Page, 109 Conn. 256, 260 , 146 Atl. 293 ; Baurer v. Devenis, 99 Conn. 203 , 121 Atl. 566 ; Restatement, 1 Contracts, § 133. | 2 | 1938–2001 |
Den Adel v. Blattman
green
2 sentences2001Den Adel v. Blattman , 57 Wash.2d 337 , 357 P.2d 159 (1960). 2001Den Adel v. Blattman , 57 Wash.2d 337 , 357 P.2d 159 (1960). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Long v. McAllister
green
1 sentence2001The Iowa Supreme Court in Long v. McAllister , 319 N.W.2d 256 (1982), refused to permit an injured party to sue the tortfeasor's insurance company based on a third party beneficiary argument. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Grigerik v. Sharpe
neutral
2 sentences1998Where the jury had specifically found that the plaintiff was neither an ‘intended’ nor ‘contemplated’ beneficiary of a contract between the defendant and another, but only a ‘foreseeable’ beneficiary of that contract, did the Appellate Court properly remand the case for retrial on the third-party beneficiary claim rather than entering judgment for the defendants?” Grigerik v. Sharpe, 243 Conn. 918, 918-19 , 701 A.2d 342 (1997). 1998Where the jury had specifically found that the plaintiff was neither an ‘intended’ nor ‘contemplated’ beneficiary of a contract between the defendant and another, but only a ‘foreseeable’ beneficiary of that contract, did the Appellate Court properly remand the case for retrial on the third-party beneficiary claim rather than entering judgment for the defendants?” Grigerik v. Sharpe, 243 Conn. 918, 918-19 , 701 A.2d 342 (1997). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Gateway Co. v. DiNoia
green
1 sentence1997"The proper test to determine whether a [contract] creates a third-party beneficiary relationship is whether the parties to the [contract] intended to create a direct obligation from one party to the [contract] to the third party." Gateway v. DiNoia , 232 Conn. 223 , 231 (1995). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Baurer v. Devenis
green
2 sentences1938Byram Lumber & Supply Co. v. Page, 109 Conn. 256, 260 , 146 Atl. 293 ; Baurer v. Devenis, 99 Conn. 203 , 121 Atl. 566 ; Restatement, 1 Contracts, § 133. 1938Byram Lumber & Supply Co. v. Page, 109 Conn. 256, 260 , 146 Atl. 293 ; Baurer v. Devenis, 99 Conn. 203 , 121 Atl. 566 ; Restatement, 1 Contracts, § 133. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.