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 3 courts 1991–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Logan v. Greenwich Hospital Ass'ngreen2 sentences2007We recognize that, although this testimony undoubtedly would bear on informed consent if that were an issue in the case; see generally Logan v. Greenwich Hospital Assn., 191 Conn. 282, 290-93 , 465 A.2d 294 (1983) (discussing development and elements of informed consent as basis for medical malpractice liability); the plaintiff did not assert a lack of informed consent claim. 2007We recognize that, although this testimony undoubtedly would bear on informed consent if that were an issue in the case; see generally Logan v. Greenwich Hospital Assn., 191 Conn. 282, 290-93 , 465 A.2d 294 (1983) (discussing development and elements of informed consent as basis for medical malpractice liability); the plaintiff did not assert a lack of informed consent claim. | 1 | 2 |
Janusauskas v. Fichmangreen2 sentences2005See Janusauskas v. Fichman, 264 Conn. 796, 811 , 826 A.2d 1066 (2003) (“In the present case, the defendant told the plaintiff that he successfully had performed [radial keratotomy] on severely myopic patients, and that he thought he could improve the plaintiffs vision to 20/40 or 20/50 in his left eye and 20/20 in his right eye. 2005See Janusauskas v. Fichman, 264 Conn. 796, 811 , 826 A.2d 1066 (2003) (“In the present case, the defendant told the plaintiff that he successfully had performed [radial keratotomy] on severely myopic patients, and that he thought he could improve the plaintiffs vision to 20/40 or 20/50 in his left eye and 20/20 in his right eye. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wade's Dairy, Inc. v. Town of Fairfield
green
2 sentences1991Here, the lack of informed consent claim is a different cause of action from the claim of negligence relating to the installation of the TPN line because the claims arise from a different group of facts. “ ‘A cause of action is that single group of facts which is claimed to have brought about an unlawful injury to the plaintiff and which entitles the plaintiff to relief.” Wade’s Dairy, Inc. v. Fairfield, 181 Conn. 556, 560 , 436 A.2d 24 (1980).” Levine v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 25 Conn. App. 199, 207 , 594 A.2d 9 (1991). 1991Here, the lack of informed consent claim is a different cause of action from the claim of negligence relating to the installation of the TPN line because the claims arise from a different group of facts. “ ‘A cause of action is that single group of facts which is claimed to have brought about an unlawful injury to the plaintiff and which entitles the plaintiff to relief.” Wade’s Dairy, Inc. v. Fairfield, 181 Conn. 556, 560 , 436 A.2d 24 (1980).” Levine v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 25 Conn. App. 199, 207 , 594 A.2d 9 (1991). | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Levine v. Plan & Zoning Commission
green
2 sentences1991Here, the lack of informed consent claim is a different cause of action from the claim of negligence relating to the installation of the TPN line because the claims arise from a different group of facts. “ ‘A cause of action is that single group of facts which is claimed to have brought about an unlawful injury to the plaintiff and which entitles the plaintiff to relief.” Wade’s Dairy, Inc. v. Fairfield, 181 Conn. 556, 560 , 436 A.2d 24 (1980).” Levine v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 25 Conn. App. 199, 207 , 594 A.2d 9 (1991). 1991Here, the lack of informed consent claim is a different cause of action from the claim of negligence relating to the installation of the TPN line because the claims arise from a different group of facts. “ ‘A cause of action is that single group of facts which is claimed to have brought about an unlawful injury to the plaintiff and which entitles the plaintiff to relief.” Wade’s Dairy, Inc. v. Fairfield, 181 Conn. 556, 560 , 436 A.2d 24 (1980).” Levine v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 25 Conn. App. 199, 207 , 594 A.2d 9 (1991). | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital
green
1 sentence1991While a claim of lack of informed consent is an action in negligence; Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702 , 706 n.4, 596 A.2d 318 (1991), in this case the lack of informed consent claim is a different cause of action from the claim of negligence arising out of the postoperative care because the claims arise from a different group of facts. “ ‘A cause of action is that single group of facts which is claimed to have brought about an unlawful injury to the plaintiff and which entitles the plaintiff to relief.’ Wade’s Dairy, Inc. v. Fairfield, 181 Conn. 556, 560 , 436 A.2d 24 (1980). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.