5 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stephen Kolbe v. Lawrence Hogan, Jr.green1 sentence2019See part IV of this dissenting opinion. 24 I also note that the majority observes that certain members of Congress ‘‘were committed to Americans’ second amendment freedoms and sought to secure those freedoms by immunizing firearms companies from frivolous lawsuits.’’ Citing recent federal cases considering the constitutionality of bans on ‘‘assault weapons’’ and ‘‘high capacity magazines,’’ the majority also notes, however, that ‘‘[i]t is not at all clear . . . that the second amendment’s protections even extend to the types of quasi-military, semiautomatic assault rifles at issue in the prese | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. McCollumgreen1 sentence2019See part IV of this dissenting opinion. 24 I also note that the majority observes that certain members of Congress ‘‘were committed to Americans’ second amendment freedoms and sought to secure those freedoms by immunizing firearms companies from frivolous lawsuits.’’ Citing recent federal cases considering the constitutionality of bans on ‘‘assault weapons’’ and ‘‘high capacity magazines,’’ the majority also notes, however, that ‘‘[i]t is not at all clear . . . that the second amendment’s protections even extend to the types of quasi-military, semiautomatic assault rifles at issue in the prese | 1 | 1 |
Desert Water Agency v. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indiansgreen1 sentence2019See part IV of this dissenting opinion. 24 I also note that the majority observes that certain members of Congress ‘‘were committed to Americans’ second amendment freedoms and sought to secure those freedoms by immunizing firearms companies from frivolous lawsuits.’’ Citing recent federal cases considering the constitutionality of bans on ‘‘assault weapons’’ and ‘‘high capacity magazines,’’ the majority also notes, however, that ‘‘[i]t is not at all clear . . . that the second amendment’s protections even extend to the types of quasi-military, semiautomatic assault rifles at issue in the prese | 1 | 1 |
Alexander v. Turtur & Associates, Inc.green1 sentence2016See Alexander v. Turtur & Associates, Inc ., 146 S.W.3d 113 , 119 (Tex.2004) ("[b]reach of the standard of care and causation are separate inquiries ... and an abundance of evidence as to one cannot substitute for a deficiency of evidence as to the other"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shegog v. Zabrecky
green
1 sentence2005Braun Melsungen, supra, 40 Conn. App. 314 -17, and Shegog v. Zabrecky, 36 Conn. App. 737 , 654 A.2d 771 , cert. denied, 232 Conn. 922 , 656 A.2d 670 (1995), to support his argument that his medical malpractice claim falls within the gross negligence exception. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Person
green
1 sentence2005Braun Melsungen, supra, 40 Conn. App. 314 -17, and Shegog v. Zabrecky, 36 Conn. App. 737 , 654 A.2d 771 , cert. denied, 232 Conn. 922 , 656 A.2d 670 (1995), to support his argument that his medical malpractice claim falls within the gross negligence exception. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Shegog v. Zabrecky
green
2 sentences2005Braun Melsungen, supra, 40 Conn. App. 314 -17, and Shegog v. Zabrecky, 36 Conn. App. 737 , 654 A.2d 771 , cert. denied, 232 Conn. 922 , 656 A.2d 670 (1995), to support his argument that his medical malpractice claim falls within the gross negligence exception. 2005Braun Melsungen, supra, 40 Conn. App. 314 -17, and Shegog v. Zabrecky, 36 Conn. App. 737 , 654 A.2d 771 , cert. denied, 232 Conn. 922 , 656 A.2d 670 (1995), to support his argument that his medical malpractice claim falls within the gross negligence exception. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Dickerson v. Connecticut Co.
green
1 sentence2001It is said that our state "does not recognize common law causes of action based upon the degree of negligence termed "gross'." As said in Decker v. Roberts, 125 Conn. 151 , 157 (1939) . . . "gross negligence has never been recognized in this state as a separate basis of liability in the law of torts," also see Dickerson v. Connecticut, 98 Conn. 87 , 89 (1922). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Pinto v. Bridgeport Mack Trucks, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1988“A bailment is a consensual relation and it includes, in its broadest sense, any delivery of personal property in trust for a lawful purpose.” Pinto v. Bridgeport Mack Trucks, Inc., 38 Conn. Sup. 639, 641 , 458 A.2d 696 (1983). 1988“A bailment is a consensual relation and it includes, in its broadest sense, any delivery of personal property in trust for a lawful purpose.” Pinto v. Bridgeport Mack Trucks, Inc., 38 Conn. Sup. 639, 641 , 458 A.2d 696 (1983). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.