identifiable person-imminent harm exception (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

identifiable person-imminent harm exception in Connecticut

45 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1997–2022 4 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 (10)

CaseFollowedCited
Purzycki v. Town of Fairfieldgreen
conn · 1998 · cited in 9 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2001–2014
2 sentences

2014I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority’s position that our earlier cases addressing the liability of school officials, namely Burns v. Board of Education, 228 Conn. 640 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994), and Purzycki v. Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101 , 708 A.2d 937 (1998), should be dismissed when analyzing the meaning of the ‘‘apparentness’’ prong of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception because ‘‘they involved school principals or superinten- dents who had a special duty of care regarding children in their respective school districts.’’ See footnote 25 of the majority opinion.

2014I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority’s position that our earlier cases addressing the liability of school officials, namely Burns v. Board of Education, 228 Conn. 640 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994), and Purzycki v. Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101 , 708 A.2d 937 (1998), should be dismissed when analyzing the meaning of the ‘‘apparentness’’ prong of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception because ‘‘they involved school principals or superinten- dents who had a special duty of care regarding children in their respective school districts.’’ See footnote 25 of the majority opinion.

69
Burns v. Board of Educationgreen
conn · 1994 · cited in 13 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2000–2021
2 sentences

2021Our recent decision in Martinez aptly summarizes the line of decisions in the wake of Burns v. Board of Education, 228 Conn. 640, 649 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994), overruled on other grounds by Haynes v. Middletown, 314 Conn. 303 , 101 A.3d 249 (2014), which apply the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to discre- tionary act immunity in the public school context, and we need not repeat that detailed analysis here.

2021Our recent decision in Martinez aptly summarizes the line of decisions in the wake of Burns v. Board of Education, 228 Conn. 640, 649 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994), overruled on other grounds by Haynes v. Middletown, 314 Conn. 303 , 101 A.3d 249 (2014), which apply the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to discre- tionary act immunity in the public school context, and we need not repeat that detailed analysis here.

513
Shore v. Town of Stoningtongreen
conn · 1982 · cited in 6 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1997–2017
2 sentences

2017See Shore v. Stonington , 187 Conn. 147 , 153-54, 444 A.2d 1379 (1982) (although legally intoxicated driver was not arrested by police officer, plaintiff lacked cause of action in negligence against officer and town for failure to enforce motor vehicle laws governing reckless driving and driving while under influence because there was no identifiable person likely subject to imminent harm).

2017See Shore v. Stonington , 187 Conn. 147 , 153-54, 444 A.2d 1379 (1982) (although legally intoxicated driver was not arrested by police officer, plaintiff lacked cause of action in negligence against officer and town for failure to enforce motor vehicle laws governing reckless driving and driving while under influence because there was no identifiable person likely subject to imminent harm).

36
Sestito v. City of Grotongreen
conn · 1979 · cited in 5 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2000–2014
2 sentences

2014The plaintiff’s reliance is misguided, as the present case is distinguishable in that Petras, unlike the police officer in Soderlund, was not compelled by any authority to act. 7 Our Supreme Court determined in Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324, 332 , 984 A.2d 684 (2009), that the identifiable person-imminent harm exception applies in actions brought pursuant to § 52-557n. 8 The plaintiff argues that Sestito v. Groton, supra, 178 Conn. 520 is analo- gous to the present case.

2003The identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity was recognized in Sestito v. Groton, 178 Conn. 520 , 423 A.2d 165 (1979).

35
Grady v. Town of Somersgreen
conn · 2009 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2014–2022
2 sentences

2022The plaintiff claims that he falls within the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity.14 The identifiable person-imminent harm ‘‘exception applies when 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 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324, 350 , 984 A.2d 684 (2009).

2022The plaintiff claims that he falls within the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity.14 The identifiable person-imminent harm ‘‘exception applies when 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 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324, 350 , 984 A.2d 684 (2009).

24
Cotto v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF NEW HAVENgreen
conn · 2009 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2011–2016
2 sentences

2011By its own terms, this test requires three things: (1) an imminent harm; (2) an identifiable victim; and (3) a public official to whom it is apparent that his or her conduct is likely to subject that victim to that harm.... [T]he failure to estabhsh any one of the three prongs precludes the application of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 859-60 , 977 A.2d 738 ; see Cotto v. Board of Edmation, supra, 294 Conn, at 273, 984 A.2d 58 .

2011By its own terms, this test requires three things: (1) an imminent harm; (2) an identifiable victim; and (3) a public official to whom it is apparent that his or her conduct is likely to subject that victim to that harm.... [T]he failure to estabhsh any one of the three prongs precludes the application of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 859-60 , 977 A.2d 738 ; see Cotto v. Board of Edmation, supra, 294 Conn, at 273, 984 A.2d 58 .

23
Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C.green
conn · 2006 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See Hurley v. Heart Physi- cians, P.C., 278 Conn. 305 , 323–24, 898 A.2d 777 (2006) (‘‘we conclude that whether [the] actions [of the defen- dant’s agent] were in derogation of the warnings in the technical manual was an issue of material fact sufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment’’).

2016See Hurley v. Heart Physi- cians, P.C., 278 Conn. 305 , 323–24, 898 A.2d 777 (2006) (‘‘we conclude that whether [the] actions [of the defen- dant’s agent] were in derogation of the warnings in the technical manual was an issue of material fact sufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment’’).

22
Doe v. Board of Educationgreen
connappct · 2003 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2004–2010
2 sentences

2007However, our Supreme Court has approved of the defendant attacking the legal sufficiency of the complaint through a motion to strike “[w]here it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the municipality was engaging in a governmental function while performing the acts and omissions complained of by the plaintiff.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310, 321 , 907 A.2d 1188 (2006); see also Doe v. Board of Education, 76 Conn. App. 296 , 299 n.6, 819 A.2d 289 (2003). 9 At oral argument, the plaintiff argued that the trial court should have concluded that t

2007However, our Supreme Court has approved of the defendant attacking the legal sufficiency of the complaint through a motion to strike “[w]here it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the municipality was engaging in a governmental function while performing the acts and omissions complained of by the plaintiff.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310, 321 , 907 A.2d 1188 (2006); see also Doe v. Board of Education, 76 Conn. App. 296 , 299 n.6, 819 A.2d 289 (2003). 9 At oral argument, the plaintiff argued that the trial court should have concluded that t

13
Silberstein v. 54 Hillcrest Park Associates, LLCgreen
connappct · 2012 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022Our analysis of the plaintiff’s claim in the present appeal focuses on the imminence and apparentness prongs of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception.15 For purposes of determining whether a plaintiff was subject to imminent harm, ‘‘[i]mminent does not simply mean a foreseeable event at some unspecified point in the not too distant future.’’ Bonington v. Westport, 297 Conn. 297, 314 , 999 A.2d 700 (2010); see also Silberstein v. 54 Hillcrest Park Associates, LLC, 135 Conn. App. 262, 275 , 41 A.3d 1147 (2012).

2022Our analysis of the plaintiff’s claim in the present appeal focuses on the imminence and apparentness prongs of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception.15 For purposes of determining whether a plaintiff was subject to imminent harm, ‘‘[i]mminent does not simply mean a foreseeable event at some unspecified point in the not too distant future.’’ Bonington v. Westport, 297 Conn. 297, 314 , 999 A.2d 700 (2010); see also Silberstein v. 54 Hillcrest Park Associates, LLC, 135 Conn. App. 262, 275 , 41 A.3d 1147 (2012).

11
Lane v. Lanegreen
conn · 1982 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
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 (32)

CaseCitedYears
Colon v. Board of Education green
connappct · 2000
2 sentences

2001"The identifiable person-imminent harm exception applies not only to identifiable individuals but also to narrowly defined classes of foreseeable victims." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Colon v. City of New Haven , 60 Conn. App. 178 , 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000) (holding that a public school student was identifiable and within the foreseeable class of victims in an accident that occurred in a school building); see also Burns v. Board of Education , 228 Conn. 640 , 646 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994).

2001"The identifiable person-imminent harm exception applies not only to identifiable individuals but also to narrowly defined classes of foreseeable victims." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Colon v. City of New Haven , 60 Conn. App. 178 , 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000) (holding that a public school student was identifiable and within the foreseeable class of victims in an accident that occurred in a school building); see also Burns v. Board of Education , 228 Conn. 640 , 646 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994).

72001–2009
Evon v. Andrews green
conn · 1989
2 sentences

2007The identifiable person-imminent harm exception “to the general rule of governmental immunity for employees engaged in discretionary activities has received very limited recognition in this state.” (Emphasis added.) Evon v. Andrews, 211 Conn. 501, 507 , 559 A.2d 1131 (1989).

2007The identifiable person-imminent harm exception “to the general rule of governmental immunity for employees engaged in discretionary activities has received very limited recognition in this state.” (Emphasis added.) Evon v. Andrews, 211 Conn. 501, 507 , 559 A.2d 1131 (1989).

62000–2007
Doe v. Petersen green
conn · 2006
2 sentences

2021II IDENTIFIABLE PERSON-IMMINENT HARM EXCEPTION TO DISCRETIONARY ACT IMMUNITY John Doe II and John Doe III next claim that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the identifiable person- imminent harm exception to discretionary act immu- nity, as explicated in Haynes v. Middletown, 314 Conn. 303 , 312–23, 101 A.3d 249 (2014), and Doe v. Petersen, 279 Conn. 607 , 616–21, 903 A.2d 191 (2006), does not apply in this case.

2021II IDENTIFIABLE PERSON-IMMINENT HARM EXCEPTION TO DISCRETIONARY ACT IMMUNITY John Doe II and John Doe III next claim that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the identifiable person- imminent harm exception to discretionary act immu- nity, as explicated in Haynes v. Middletown, 314 Conn. 303 , 312–23, 101 A.3d 249 (2014), and Doe v. Petersen, 279 Conn. 607 , 616–21, 903 A.2d 191 (2006), does not apply in this case.

52009–2021
Colon v. Board of Education green
conn · 2000
2 sentences

2009Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn. App. 178, 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000); see also Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. 646 ; DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270, 273 , 869 A.2d 271 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn. App. 601, 620 , 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27 , 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

2001"The identifiable person-imminent harm exception applies not only to identifiable individuals but also to narrowly defined classes of foreseeable victims." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Colon v. City of New Haven , 60 Conn. App. 178 , 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000) (holding that a public school student was identifiable and within the foreseeable class of victims in an accident that occurred in a school building); see also Burns v. Board of Education , 228 Conn. 640 , 646 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994).

52001–2009
Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Tarro green
conn · 2000
2 sentences

2009Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn. App. 178, 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000); see also Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. 646 ; DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270, 273 , 869 A.2d 271 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn. App. 601, 620 , 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27 , 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

2001"The identifiable person-imminent harm exception applies not only to identifiable individuals but also to narrowly defined classes of foreseeable victims." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Colon v. City of New Haven , 60 Conn. App. 178 , 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000) (holding that a public school student was identifiable and within the foreseeable class of victims in an accident that occurred in a school building); see also Burns v. Board of Education , 228 Conn. 640 , 646 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994).

52001–2009
Martinez v. City of New Haven green
conn · 2018
2 sentences

2021All three must be proven in order for the exception to apply. . . . [T]he ultimate determi- nation of whether [governmental] immunity applies is ordinarily a question of law for the court . . . [unless] there are unresolved factual issues . . . properly left to the jury.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Martinez v. New Haven, 328 Conn. 1, 8 , 176 A.3d 531 (2018). ‘‘[Our Supreme Court has] stated pre- viously that this exception to the general rule of govern- mental immunity for employees engaged in discretion- ary activities has received very limited recognition in this

2021All three must be proven in order for the exception to apply. . . . [T]he ultimate determi- nation of whether [governmental] immunity applies is ordinarily a question of law for the court . . . [unless] there are unresolved factual issues . . . properly left to the jury.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Martinez v. New Haven, 328 Conn. 1, 8 , 176 A.3d 531 (2018). ‘‘[Our Supreme Court has] stated pre- viously that this exception to the general rule of govern- mental immunity for employees engaged in discretion- ary activities has received very limited recognition in this

42018–2021
Strycharz v. Cady green
conn · 2016
2 sentences

2018Moreover, the question of whether the defendants could have prevented the plaintiff from leaving school property, while relevant to whether the defendants had breached a ministerial duty, was "irrelevant to the issue of whether it was apparent to them that students were, in fact, leaving school property, which is what the plaintiff must demonstrate to establish ... the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity." (Emphasis in original.) Id., at 590 , 148 A.3d 1011 .

2018Moreover, the question of whether the defendants could have prevented the plaintiff from leaving school property, while relevant to whether the defendants had breached a ministerial duty, was "irrelevant to the issue of whether it was apparent to them that students were, in fact, leaving school property, which is what the plaintiff must demonstrate to establish ... the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity." (Emphasis in original.) Id., at 590 , 148 A.3d 1011 .

42018–2020
Bonington v. Town of Westport green
conn · 2010
2 sentences

2022Our analysis of the plaintiff’s claim in the present appeal focuses on the imminence and apparentness prongs of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception.15 For purposes of determining whether a plaintiff was subject to imminent harm, ‘‘[i]mminent does not simply mean a foreseeable event at some unspecified point in the not too distant future.’’ Bonington v. Westport, 297 Conn. 297, 314 , 999 A.2d 700 (2010); see also Silberstein v. 54 Hillcrest Park Associates, LLC, 135 Conn. App. 262, 275 , 41 A.3d 1147 (2012).

2022Our analysis of the plaintiff’s claim in the present appeal focuses on the imminence and apparentness prongs of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception.15 For purposes of determining whether a plaintiff was subject to imminent harm, ‘‘[i]mminent does not simply mean a foreseeable event at some unspecified point in the not too distant future.’’ Bonington v. Westport, 297 Conn. 297, 314 , 999 A.2d 700 (2010); see also Silberstein v. 54 Hillcrest Park Associates, LLC, 135 Conn. App. 262, 275 , 41 A.3d 1147 (2012).

22017–2022
St. Pierre v. Town of Plainfield green
conn · 2017
2 sentences

2019Pierre v. Plainfield, 326 Conn. 420, 434 , 165 A.3d 148 (2017) (noting that three exceptions to discretionary act immunity are recognized, but only identifiable person-imminent harm exception was relevant). 12 We recognize that the trial court provided substantial analysis in regard to whether the identifiable person-imminent harm exception was applicable to the plaintiffs’ claims.

2019Pierre v. Plainfield, 326 Conn. 420, 434 , 165 A.3d 148 (2017) (noting that three exceptions to discretionary act immunity are recognized, but only identifiable person-imminent harm exception was relevant). 12 We recognize that the trial court provided substantial analysis in regard to whether the identifiable person-imminent harm exception was applicable to the plaintiffs’ claims.

22019–2020
Swanson v. City of Groton green
connappct · 2009
2 sentences

2011By its own terms, this test requires three things: (1) an imminent harm; (2) an identifiable victim; and (3) a public official to whom it is apparent that his or her conduct is likely to subject that victim to that harm.... [T]he failure to estabhsh any one of the three prongs precludes the application of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 859-60 , 977 A.2d 738 ; see Cotto v. Board of Edmation, supra, 294 Conn, at 273, 984 A.2d 58 .

2011By its own terms, this test requires three things: (1) an imminent harm; (2) an identifiable victim; and (3) a public official to whom it is apparent that his or her conduct is likely to subject that victim to that harm.... [T]he failure to estabhsh any one of the three prongs precludes the application of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 859-60 , 977 A.2d 738 ; see Cotto v. Board of Edmation, supra, 294 Conn, at 273, 984 A.2d 58 .

22010–2011
State v. Smith green
conn · 2005
2 sentences

2009Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn. App. 178, 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000); see also Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. 646 ; DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270, 273 , 869 A.2d 271 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn. App. 601, 620 , 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27 , 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

2006Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn.App. 178, 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000); see also Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. at 646 , 638 A.2d 1 ; DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn.App. 270, 273 , 869 A.2d 271 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn.App. 601, 620 , 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27 , 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

22006–2009
Gajewski v. Pavelo green
conn · 1996
2 sentences

2009Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn. App. 178, 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000); see also Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. 646 ; DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270, 273 , 869 A.2d 271 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn. App. 601, 620 , 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27 , 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

2009Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn. App. 178, 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000); see also Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. 646 ; DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270, 273 , 869 A.2d 271 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn. App. 601, 620 , 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27 , 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

22006–2009
Animal Rights Front, Inc. v. Jacques green
conn · 2005
2 sentences

2009Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn. App. 178, 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000); see also Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. 646 ; DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270, 273 , 869 A.2d 271 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn. App. 601, 620 , 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27 , 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

2006Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn.App. 178, 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000); see also Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. at 646 , 638 A.2d 1 ; DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn.App. 270, 273 , 869 A.2d 271 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn.App. 601, 620 , 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27 , 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

22006–2009
Gajewski v. Pavelo green
connappct · 1994
2 sentences

2009Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn. App. 178, 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000); see also Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. 646 ; DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270, 273 , 869 A.2d 271 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn. App. 601, 620 , 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27 , 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

2009Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn. App. 178, 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000); see also Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. 646 ; DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270, 273 , 869 A.2d 271 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn. App. 601, 620 , 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27 , 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

22006–2009
DeConti v. McGlone green
connappct · 2005
2 sentences

2009Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn. App. 178, 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000); see also Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. 646 ; DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270, 273 , 869 A.2d 271 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn. App. 601, 620 , 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27 , 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

2009Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn. App. 178, 184 , 758 A.2d 900 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908 , 763 A.2d 1034 (2000); see also Burns v. Board of Education, supra, 228 Conn. 646 ; DeConti v. McGlone, 88 Conn. App. 270, 273 , 869 A.2d 271 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 940 , 875 A.2d 42 (2005); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn. App. 601, 620 , 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27 , 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

22006–2009
Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority green
conn · 1988
2 sentences

2001See, e.g., Purzycki v. Fairfield , 244 Conn. 101 , 708 A.2d 937 (1998), Burns v. Board of Education , 228 Conn. 640 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994); Evon v. Andrews , 211 Conn. 501 , 559 A.2d 1131 (1989); Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority , 208 Conn. 161 , 544 A.2d 1185 (1988); Shore v. Stonington , 187 Conn. 147 , 444 A.2d 1379 (1982); Sestito v. Groton , 178 Conn. 520 , 528 , 423 A.2d 165 (1979); 7 See also Colon v. City of New Haven , 60 Conn. App. 178 , 758 A.2d 900 (2000); Bonamico v. Middletown , 49 Conn. App. 605 , 713 A.2d 1291 (1998).

2001See, e.g., Purzycki v. Fairfield , 244 Conn. 101 , 708 A.2d 937 (1998), Burns v. Board of Education , 228 Conn. 640 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994); Evon v. Andrews , 211 Conn. 501 , 559 A.2d 1131 (1989); Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority , 208 Conn. 161 , 544 A.2d 1185 (1988); Shore v. Stonington , 187 Conn. 147 , 444 A.2d 1379 (1982); Sestito v. Groton , 178 Conn. 520 , 528 , 423 A.2d 165 (1979); 7 See also Colon v. City of New Haven , 60 Conn. App. 178 , 758 A.2d 900 (2000); Bonamico v. Middletown , 49 Conn. App. 605 , 713 A.2d 1291 (1998).

22001–2001
Bonamico v. City of Middletown neutral
connappct · 1998
2 sentences

2001See, e.g., Purzycki v. Fairfield , 244 Conn. 101 , 708 A.2d 937 (1998), Burns v. Board of Education , 228 Conn. 640 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994); Evon v. Andrews , 211 Conn. 501 , 559 A.2d 1131 (1989); Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority , 208 Conn. 161 , 544 A.2d 1185 (1988); Shore v. Stonington , 187 Conn. 147 , 444 A.2d 1379 (1982); Sestito v. Groton , 178 Conn. 520 , 528 , 423 A.2d 165 (1979); 7 See also Colon v. City of New Haven , 60 Conn. App. 178 , 758 A.2d 900 (2000); Bonamico v. Middletown , 49 Conn. App. 605 , 713 A.2d 1291 (1998).

2001See, e.g., Purzycki v. Fairfield , 244 Conn. 101 , 708 A.2d 937 (1998), Burns v. Board of Education , 228 Conn. 640 , 638 A.2d 1 (1994); Evon v. Andrews , 211 Conn. 501 , 559 A.2d 1131 (1989); Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority , 208 Conn. 161 , 544 A.2d 1185 (1988); Shore v. Stonington , 187 Conn. 147 , 444 A.2d 1379 (1982); Sestito v. Groton , 178 Conn. 520 , 528 , 423 A.2d 165 (1979); 7 See also Colon v. City of New Haven , 60 Conn. App. 178 , 758 A.2d 900 (2000); Bonamico v. Middletown , 49 Conn. App. 605 , 713 A.2d 1291 (1998).

22001–2001
Bonamico v. City of Middletown neutral
connappct · 1998
2 sentences

2000On the other hand, the case of Bonamico v. Middletown , 47 Conn. App. 758 (1998), without discussion, affirms the granting of a motion to strike a complaint because "the plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged facts necessary to bring this case within the ambit of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity".

2000Id., 762 .

22000–2000
Borelli v. Renaldi green
conn · 2020
1 sentence

2022Cit- ing Borelli v. Renaldi, 336 Conn. 1 , 243 A.3d 1064 (2020), and Kusy v. Norwich, 192 Conn. App. 171 , 217 A.3d 31 , cert. denied, 333 Conn. 931 , 218 A.3d 71 (2019), the court stated that, to determine whether the plaintiff had pleaded facts satisfying the identifiable victim element of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity, it had to consider whether the plaintiff was legally compelled to be present on the property when the pit bulls attacked her.3 The court determined that the plaintiff was not legally compelled to be on the property, notwithstanding h

12022–2022
Fenner v. Commissioner of Correction neutral
connappct · 2021
1 sentence

2022Nevertheless, this court is required to follow binding Supreme Court precedent unless and until our Supreme Court sees fit to alter it.’’ Buehler v. Newtown, supra, 206 Conn. App. 488 n.14 . 8 As an alternative ground for affirmance, the defendants argue that the plaintiff failed to allege that she was subject to imminent harm for purposes of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immu- nity.

12022–2022
Kusy v. Norwich green
connappct · 2019
1 sentence

2022Cit- ing Borelli v. Renaldi, 336 Conn. 1 , 243 A.3d 1064 (2020), and Kusy v. Norwich, 192 Conn. App. 171 , 217 A.3d 31 , cert. denied, 333 Conn. 931 , 218 A.3d 71 (2019), the court stated that, to determine whether the plaintiff had pleaded facts satisfying the identifiable victim element of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity, it had to consider whether the plaintiff was legally compelled to be present on the property when the pit bulls attacked her.3 The court determined that the plaintiff was not legally compelled to be on the property, notwithstanding h

12022–2022
Northrup v. Witkowski green
connappct · 2017
12019–2019
Fleming v. City of Bridgeport green
conn · 2007
12014–2014
Violano v. Fernandez green
conn · 2006
12007–2007
Durrant v. BOARD OF ED. OF CITY OF HARTFORD green
connappct · 2006
12007–2007
Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Baran neutral
conn · 1998
12006–2006
Valenti v. Zoning Board green
conn · 1998
12006–2006
Brown v. Town of Branford green
connappct · 1987
12004–2004
Peters v. Town of Greenwich, No. Cv 95-0147192 S (Jan. 2, 2001) green
connsuperct · 2001
12003–2003
Levinson v. Connecticut Board of Chiropractic Examiners green
conn · 1989
12001–2001
Roman v. City of Stamford green
conn · 1989
12001–2001
Roman v. City of Stamford green
connappct · 1988
12001–2001

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n (30) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-465 (14) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-220 (5) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-199 (5) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-149 (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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check