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.
44 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 2003–2026 15 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tagergreen2 sentences2025See id., 87 (requiring trial court to assess whether case ‘‘present[s] a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent [on] some event that has not and indeed may never transpire’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2024Accordingly, in determining whether a case is ripe, a trial court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.’’ (Citations omit- ted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 , 86–87, 952 A.2d 1 (2008). | 2 | 8 |
Francis v. Board of Pardons & Parolesgreen2 sentences2026Accordingly, in determining whether a case is ripe, a trial court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.” (Emphasis omitted; internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Francis v. Board of Pardons & Paroles, 338 Conn. 347, 358–59, 258 A.3d 71 (2021); see also Saunders v. KDFBS, LLC, 335 Conn. 586, 604, 239 A.3d 1162 (2020) (“[a] case is not ripe if it presents a hypothetical injury or a claim that is contingent on the happening of some event that has not yet and, indeed, may 2026Accordingly, in determining whether a case is ripe, a trial court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.” (Emphasis omitted; internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Francis v. Board of Pardons & Paroles, 338 Conn. 347 , 358–59, 258 A.3d 71 (2021); see also Saunders v. KDFBS, LLC, 335 Conn. 586, 604 , 239 A.3d 1162 (2020) (“[a] case is not ripe if it presents a hypothetical injury or a claim that is contingent on the happening of some event that has not yet and, indeed, ma | 2 | 6 |
Esposito v. Specyalskigreen2 sentences2010See State v. Kemah, 289 Conn. 411, 436 , 957 A.2d 852 (2008) (claim presupposing trial court decision on remand not ripe for review); Esposito v. Specyalski, 268 Conn. 336, 346 , 844 A.2d 211 (2004) (to satisfy ripeness requirement of justiciability, “we must be satisfied that the case before the court does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire” [internal quotation marks omitted]). 11 The defendants and Wachovia claim that the trial court’s conclusion that Fitzsimmons had no personal knowledge of the facts regarding 2010See State v. Kemah, 289 Conn. 411, 436 , 957 A.2d 852 (2008) (claim presupposing trial court decision on remand not ripe for review); Esposito v. Specyalski, 268 Conn. 336, 346 , 844 A.2d 211 (2004) (to satisfy ripeness requirement of justiciability, “we must be satisfied that the case before the court does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire” [internal quotation marks omitted]). 11 The defendants and Wachovia claim that the trial court’s conclusion that Fitzsimmons had no personal knowledge of the facts regarding | 1 | 5 |
Cadle Co. v. D'ADDARIOgreen2 sentences2025Accordingly, in determining whether a case is ripe, a [reviewing] court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cadle Co. v. D’Addario, 111 Conn. App. 80 , 82–83, 957 A.2d 536 (2008). ‘‘[Our Supreme Court] has often stated that the ques- tion of subject matter jurisdiction, because it addresses the basic competency of the court, can be raised by any of the parties, or by the court sua sponte, at any time. . . . [T 2025Accordingly, in determining whether a case is ripe, a [reviewing] court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cadle Co. v. D’Addario, 111 Conn. App. 80 , 82–83, 957 A.2d 536 (2008). ‘‘[Our Supreme Court] has often stated that the ques- tion of subject matter jurisdiction, because it addresses the basic competency of the court, can be raised by any of the parties, or by the court sua sponte, at any time. . . . [T | 1 | 4 |
Saunders v. KDFBS, LLCgreen2 sentences2026Accordingly, in determining whether a case is ripe, a trial court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.” (Emphasis omitted; internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Francis v. Board of Pardons & Paroles, 338 Conn. 347, 358–59, 258 A.3d 71 (2021); see also Saunders v. KDFBS, LLC, 335 Conn. 586, 604, 239 A.3d 1162 (2020) (“[a] case is not ripe if it presents a hypothetical injury or a claim that is contingent on the happening of some event that has not yet and, indeed, may 2026Accordingly, in determining whether a case is ripe, a trial court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.” (Emphasis omitted; internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Francis v. Board of Pardons & Paroles, 338 Conn. 347 , 358–59, 258 A.3d 71 (2021); see also Saunders v. KDFBS, LLC, 335 Conn. 586, 604 , 239 A.3d 1162 (2020) (“[a] case is not ripe if it presents a hypothetical injury or a claim that is contingent on the happening of some event that has not yet and, indeed, ma | 1 | 1 |
Pelc v. Southington Dental Associates, P.C.green1 sentence2026See Pelc v. Southington Dental Associates, P.C., 232 Conn. App. 393, 409 , 337 A.3d 50 (“[T]he rationale behind the ripeness requirement is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudica- tion, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements . . . . [I]n determining whether a case is ripe, a [trial] court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim Zheng v. Xia whether Whitby School had made a decision regarding the child’s upcoming school year, after which the defen- dant acknowledged that Whitby School, again, would provi | 1 | 1 |
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Bookgreen1 sentence2017"It is axiomatic that a claim is not ripe for adjudication when an injury is hypothetical, or a claim [is] contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lost Trail, LLC v. Weston , 140 Conn.App. 136 , 155, 57 A.3d 905 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 915 , 61 A.3d 1102 (2013) ; see also Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Matschke , 111 Conn.App. 462 , 464, 959 A.2d 652 (2008) ("the rationale behind the ripeness requirement is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagree | 1 | 1 |
In Re Jalyn H.green1 sentence2017"It is axiomatic that a claim is not ripe for adjudication when an injury is hypothetical, or a claim [is] contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lost Trail, LLC v. Weston , 140 Conn.App. 136 , 155, 57 A.3d 905 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 915 , 61 A.3d 1102 (2013) ; see also Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Matschke , 111 Conn.App. 462 , 464, 959 A.2d 652 (2008) ("the rationale behind the ripeness requirement is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagree | 1 | 1 |
Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Matschkegreen2 sentences2017"It is axiomatic that a claim is not ripe for adjudication when an injury is hypothetical, or a claim [is] contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lost Trail, LLC v. Weston , 140 Conn.App. 136 , 155, 57 A.3d 905 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 915 , 61 A.3d 1102 (2013) ; see also Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Matschke , 111 Conn.App. 462 , 464, 959 A.2d 652 (2008) ("the rationale behind the ripeness requirement is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagree 2017"It is axiomatic that a claim is not ripe for adjudication when an injury is hypothetical, or a claim [is] contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lost Trail, LLC v. Weston , 140 Conn.App. 136 , 155, 57 A.3d 905 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 915 , 61 A.3d 1102 (2013) ; see also Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Matschke , 111 Conn.App. 462 , 464, 959 A.2d 652 (2008) ("the rationale behind the ripeness requirement is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagree | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kemahgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Kemah, 289 Conn. 411, 436 , 957 A.2d 852 (2008) (claim presupposing trial court decision on remand not ripe for review); Esposito v. Specyalski, 268 Conn. 336, 346 , 844 A.2d 211 (2004) (to satisfy ripeness requirement of justiciability, “we must be satisfied that the case before the court does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire” [internal quotation marks omitted]). 11 The defendants and Wachovia claim that the trial court’s conclusion that Fitzsimmons had no personal knowledge of the facts regarding 2010See State v. Kemah, 289 Conn. 411, 436 , 957 A.2d 852 (2008) (claim presupposing trial court decision on remand not ripe for review); Esposito v. Specyalski, 268 Conn. 336, 346 , 844 A.2d 211 (2004) (to satisfy ripeness requirement of justiciability, “we must be satisfied that the case before the court does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire” [internal quotation marks omitted]). 11 The defendants and Wachovia claim that the trial court’s conclusion that Fitzsimmons had no personal knowledge of the facts regarding | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Milford Power Co v. Alstom Power, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024Co., 126 Conn. App. 733 , 738–39, 12 A.3d 613 (2011); see also Practice Book § 17-55. ‘‘In light of the rationale of the ripeness requirement, to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature 5 ‘‘A case that is nonjusticiable must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Francis v. Board of Pardons & Paroles, 338 Conn. 347, 358 , 258 A.3d 71 (2021). 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 9 Larobina v. Altice Media Solutions, LLC adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements . . . we must be satisfied th 2024Co., 126 Conn. App. 733 , 738–39, 12 A.3d 613 (2011); see also Practice Book § 17-55. ‘‘In light of the rationale of the ripeness requirement, to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature 5 ‘‘A case that is nonjusticiable must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Francis v. Board of Pardons & Paroles, 338 Conn. 347, 358 , 258 A.3d 71 (2021). 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 9 Larobina v. Altice Media Solutions, LLC adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements . . . we must be satisfied th | 10 | 2004–2024 |
Office of the Governor v. Select Committee of Inquiry
green
2 sentences2017Nor do we conclude that, as the plaintiff contends, the appeal is unripe. "[T]he rationale behind the ripeness requirement is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements ... [and we therefore] must be satisfied that the case before [us] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Office of the Governor v. Select Committee of Inquiry , 271 Conn. 540 , 570, 858 A.2d 709 (2004). 2017Nor do we conclude that, as the plaintiff contends, the appeal is unripe. "[T]he rationale behind the ripeness requirement is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements ... [and we therefore] must be satisfied that the case before [us] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Office of the Governor v. Select Committee of Inquiry , 271 Conn. 540 , 570, 858 A.2d 709 (2004). | 3 | 2006–2017 |
Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission
green
2 sentences2004Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, 259 Conn. 131, 144 , 788 A.2d 1158 (2002); we must be satisfied that the case before the court does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Milford Power Co., LLC v. Alstom Power, Inc., 263 Conn. 616, 626 , 822 A.2d 196 (2003). 2004Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission, 259 Conn. 131, 144 , 788 A.2d 1158 (2002); we must be satisfied that the case before the court does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Milford Power Co., LLC v. Alstom Power, Inc., 263 Conn. 616, 626 , 822 A.2d 196 (2003). | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Orlando v. Liburd
green
1 sentence2026It is only upon such a deter- mination that the legal elements of ripeness for the [plaintiff’s unjust enrichment] claim . . . can be met . . . .’’ We agree with the plaintiff. ‘‘[T]he rationale behind the ripeness requirement is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements . . . . [I]n determining whether a case is ripe, a trial court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent [on] some event that has not and January 6, 2026 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 14 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Lewis v. Slack
green
2 sentences2025Moreover, [t]he parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court, either by waiver or by consent.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Lewis v. Slack, 110 Conn. App. 641, 643 , 955 A.2d 620 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 953 , 961 A.2d 417 (2008). 2025Moreover, [t]he parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court, either by waiver or by consent.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Lewis v. Slack, 110 Conn. App. 641, 643 , 955 A.2d 620 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 953 , 961 A.2d 417 (2008). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Ouellette
green
1 sentence2025Moreover, [t]he parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court, either by waiver or by consent.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Lewis v. Slack, 110 Conn. App. 641, 643 , 955 A.2d 620 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 953 , 961 A.2d 417 (2008). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
THERGOOD v. Commissioner of Correction
green
1 sentence2025Moreover, [t]he parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court, either by waiver or by consent.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Lewis v. Slack, 110 Conn. App. 641, 643 , 955 A.2d 620 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 953 , 961 A.2d 417 (2008). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Pringle v. Pattis
neutral
1 sentence2024Accordingly, in determining whether a case is ripe, a trial court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire. . . . [I]n determin- ing whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Pringle v. Pattis, 212 Conn. App. 736 , 742–43, 276 A.3d 1042 (2022). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Shenkman-Tyler v. Central Mut. Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2024Co., 126 Conn. App. 733 , 738–39, 12 A.3d 613 (2011); see also Practice Book § 17-55. ‘‘In light of the rationale of the ripeness requirement, to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature 5 ‘‘A case that is nonjusticiable must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Francis v. Board of Pardons & Paroles, 338 Conn. 347, 358 , 258 A.3d 71 (2021). 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 9 Larobina v. Altice Media Solutions, LLC adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements . . . we must be satisfied th 2024Co., 126 Conn. App. 733 , 738–39, 12 A.3d 613 (2011); see also Practice Book § 17-55. ‘‘In light of the rationale of the ripeness requirement, to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature 5 ‘‘A case that is nonjusticiable must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Francis v. Board of Pardons & Paroles, 338 Conn. 347, 358 , 258 A.3d 71 (2021). 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 9 Larobina v. Altice Media Solutions, LLC adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements . . . we must be satisfied th | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Green v. Paz
green
1 sentence2022Generally, the exoneration rule provides that ‘‘a legal malpractice claim is not ripe for adjudication unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the relevant underlying conviction has been invalidated.’’ Green v. Paz, 211 Conn. App. 152, 153 , 271 A.3d 1138 (2022). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Mikucka v. St. Lucian's Residence, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2021Accordingly, in determining whether a case is ripe, a trial court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) Id., 165–66. ‘‘[B]ecause an issue regarding justiciability raises a question of law, our appellate review is plenary.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tavani v. Riley, supra, 676. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Reynolds v. Quiros
green
1 sentence2021Accordingly, in determining whether a case is ripe, a . . . court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent [on] some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Campbell, supra, 328 Conn. 463 . 96 We note that, while this appeal was pending before this court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in Reynolds v. Quiros, 990 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2021), which considered a variety of constitu- tional challenges to § 18-10b bro | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gay & Lesbian Law Students Ass'n v. Board of Trustees
green
2 sentences2020Co. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 290 Conn. 767, 814 , 967 A.2d 1 (2009) (‘‘we must be satisfied that the case before the court does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gay & Lesbian Law Students Assn. v. Board of Trustees, 236 Conn. 453, 465 , 673 A.2d 484 (1996) (for association to have standing, it must allege invasion of legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical). 2020Co. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 290 Conn. 767, 814 , 967 A.2d 1 (2009) (‘‘we must be satisfied that the case before the court does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gay & Lesbian Law Students Assn. v. Board of Trustees, 236 Conn. 453, 465 , 673 A.2d 484 (1996) (for association to have standing, it must allege invasion of legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Lone Star Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020Co. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 290 Conn. 767, 814 , 967 A.2d 1 (2009) (‘‘we must be satisfied that the case before the court does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gay & Lesbian Law Students Assn. v. Board of Trustees, 236 Conn. 453, 465 , 673 A.2d 484 (1996) (for association to have standing, it must allege invasion of legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical). 2020Co. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 290 Conn. 767, 814 , 967 A.2d 1 (2009) (‘‘we must be satisfied that the case before the court does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gay & Lesbian Law Students Assn. v. Board of Trustees, 236 Conn. 453, 465 , 673 A.2d 484 (1996) (for association to have standing, it must allege invasion of legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bysiewicz v. Dinardo
green
2 sentences2020The plaintiff relies on Bysiewicz v. DiNardo, 298 Conn. 748 , 6 A.3d 726 (2010), claiming that ‘‘[n]o party alleged an injury was present’’ in that case. 2020The plaintiff relies on Bysiewicz v. DiNardo, 298 Conn. 748 , 6 A.3d 726 (2010), claiming that ‘‘[n]o party alleged an injury was present’’ in that case. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Perez v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2019"The subject matter jurisdiction requirement may not be waived by any party, and also may be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pentland v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 176 Conn. App. at 785 , 169 A.3d 851 . "[A] trial court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent [on] some event that has not and indeed may never transpire .... [R]ipeness is a sine qua non of justiciability ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Perez 2019"The subject matter jurisdiction requirement may not be waived by any party, and also may be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pentland v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 176 Conn. App. at 785 , 169 A.3d 851 . "[A] trial court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent [on] some event that has not and indeed may never transpire .... [R]ipeness is a sine qua non of justiciability ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Perez | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re Pentland
green
2 sentences2019"The subject matter jurisdiction requirement may not be waived by any party, and also may be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pentland v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 176 Conn. App. at 785 , 169 A.3d 851 . "[A] trial court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent [on] some event that has not and indeed may never transpire .... [R]ipeness is a sine qua non of justiciability ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Perez 2019"The subject matter jurisdiction requirement may not be waived by any party, and also may be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pentland v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 176 Conn. App. at 785 , 169 A.3d 851 . "[A] trial court must be satisfied that the case before [it] does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent [on] some event that has not and indeed may never transpire .... [R]ipeness is a sine qua non of justiciability ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Perez | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Lee v. Harlow, Adams and Friedman, PC
neutral
2 sentences2018"In general, the plaintiff in an attorney malpractice action must establish: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) the attorney's wrongful act or omission; (3) causation; and (4) damages.... [T]he plaintiff typically proves that the defendant attorney's professional negligence caused injury to the plaintiff by presenting evidence of what would have happened in the underlying action had the defendant not been negligent." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lee v. Harlow, Adams & Friedman, P.C. , 116 Conn. App. 289 , 297, 975 A.2d 715 (2009). 2018"In general, the plaintiff in an attorney malpractice action must establish: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) the attorney's wrongful act or omission; (3) causation; and (4) damages.... [T]he plaintiff typically proves that the defendant attorney's professional negligence caused injury to the plaintiff by presenting evidence of what would have happened in the underlying action had the defendant not been negligent." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lee v. Harlow, Adams & Friedman, P.C. , 116 Conn. App. 289 , 297, 975 A.2d 715 (2009). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lost Trail, LLC v. Town of Weston
green
2 sentences2017"It is axiomatic that a claim is not ripe for adjudication when an injury is hypothetical, or a claim [is] contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lost Trail, LLC v. Weston , 140 Conn.App. 136 , 155, 57 A.3d 905 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 915 , 61 A.3d 1102 (2013) ; see also Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Matschke , 111 Conn.App. 462 , 464, 959 A.2d 652 (2008) ("the rationale behind the ripeness requirement is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagree 2017"It is axiomatic that a claim is not ripe for adjudication when an injury is hypothetical, or a claim [is] contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lost Trail, LLC v. Weston , 140 Conn.App. 136 , 155, 57 A.3d 905 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 915 , 61 A.3d 1102 (2013) ; see also Astoria Federal Mortgage Corp. v. Matschke , 111 Conn.App. 462 , 464, 959 A.2d 652 (2008) ("the rationale behind the ripeness requirement is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagree | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Mayer v. Biafore, Florek & O'Neill
green
2 sentences2009“In general, the plaintiff in an attorney malpractice action must establish: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) the attorney’s wrongful act or omission; (3) causation; and (4) damages.” Mayer v. Biafore, Florek & O’Neill, 245 Conn. 88, 92 , 713 A.2d 1267 (1998). 2009“In general, the plaintiff in an attorney malpractice action must establish: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) the attorney’s wrongful act or omission; (3) causation; and (4) damages.” Mayer v. Biafore, Florek & O’Neill, 245 Conn. 88, 92 , 713 A.2d 1267 (1998). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Schwartz v. Milazzo neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Lind-Larsen v. Fleet National Bank of Connecticut green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Campbell neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Green Rock Ridge, Inc. v. Kobernat green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.