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.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pellecchia v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.green2 sentences2014See id., 416 . ‘‘Our Supreme Court has defined exclusive control of the situation, for the pur- pose of a common-law indemnification claim, as exclu- sive control over the dangerous condition that gives rise to the accident.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pellecchia v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 139 Conn. App. 767, 775 , 57 A.3d 803 (2012) (dangerous condition held to be electric power line which electrocuted plain- tiff), cert. denied, 308 Conn. 911 , 61 A.3d 532 (2013). 2014See id., 416 . ‘‘Our Supreme Court has defined exclusive control of the situation, for the pur- pose of a common-law indemnification claim, as exclu- sive control over the dangerous condition that gives rise to the accident.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pellecchia v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 139 Conn. App. 767, 775 , 57 A.3d 803 (2012) (dangerous condition held to be electric power line which electrocuted plain- tiff), cert. denied, 308 Conn. 911 , 61 A.3d 532 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kaplan v. Merberg Wrecking Corporation
green
2 sentences1991Weintraub v. Richard Dahn, Inc., 188 Conn. 570 , 573 (1982) (citing Kaplan v. Merberg Wrecking Co., 152 Conn. 405 , 416 (1965). 1990Weintraub v. Richard Dahn, Inc., 188 Conn. 570 , 573 (1982) (citing Kaplan v. Merberg Wrecking Co., 152 Conn. 405 , 416 (1965). | 2 | 1990–1991 |
Weintraub v. Richard Dahn, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991Weintraub v. Richard Dahn, Inc., 188 Conn. 570 , 573 (1982) (citing Kaplan v. Merberg Wrecking Co., 152 Conn. 405 , 416 (1965). 1990Weintraub v. Richard Dahn, Inc., 188 Conn. 570 , 573 (1982) (citing Kaplan v. Merberg Wrecking Co., 152 Conn. 405 , 416 (1965). | 2 | 1990–1991 |
Skuzinski v. Bouchard Fuels, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012Our Supreme Court has defined “exclusive control of the situation,” for the purpose of a common-law indemnification claim, as “exclusive control over the dangerous condition that gives rise to the accident.” Skuzinski v. Bouchard Fuels, Inc., 240 Conn. 694, 706 , 694 A.2d 788 (1997). 2012Our Supreme Court has defined “exclusive control of the situation,” for the purpose of a common-law indemnification claim, as “exclusive control over the dangerous condition that gives rise to the accident.” Skuzinski v. Bouchard Fuels, Inc., 240 Conn. 694, 706 , 694 A.2d 788 (1997). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Kyrtatas v. Stop & Shop, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005II COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION CLAIMS AS BETWEEN CODEFENDANTS Bracey claims that Kyrtatas v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 205 Conn. 694 , 535 A.2d 357 (1988), bars this common-law indemnification claim as inconsistent with the comparative responsibility provisions of the act — specifically, General Statutes § 52-572o (b), (c) and (d) — and with § 52-572o (e) allowing an action for contribution. 2005II COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION CLAIMS AS BETWEEN CODEFENDANTS Bracey claims that Kyrtatas v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 205 Conn. 694 , 535 A.2d 357 (1988), bars this common-law indemnification claim as inconsistent with the comparative responsibility provisions of the act — specifically, General Statutes § 52-572o (b), (c) and (d) — and with § 52-572o (e) allowing an action for contribution. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.