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 1982–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dunham v. Dunhamgreen1 sentence1995See Dunham v. Dunham, 217 Conn. 24 , 35-37 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kukanskis v. Griffith
green
2 sentences1983Inc. v. Brooks, supra, 161 n.10. 6 Because Public Acts 1981, No. 81-8, provides a property owner with a hearing “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner”; Kukanskis v. Griffith, 180 Conn. 501, 509-10 , 430 A.2d 21 (1980); we do not construe the absence of a bonding provision as rendering the statute constitutionally infirm. 1983Inc. v. Brooks, supra, 161 n.10. 6 Because Public Acts 1981, No. 81-8, provides a property owner with a hearing “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner”; Kukanskis v. Griffith, 180 Conn. 501, 509-10 , 430 A.2d 21 (1980); we do not construe the absence of a bonding provision as rendering the statute constitutionally infirm. | 2 | 1982–1983 |
Willoughby v. City of New Haven
green
2 sentences2014The plaintiff brought an action in negligence and the defendants thereafter moved for summary judg- ment, arguing that ‘‘[t]he applicable [t]own . . . ordi- nance does not impose liability on the defendants for such an incident on a public sidewalk . . . .’’ Relying on Willoughby v. New Haven, 123 Conn. 446 , 197 A. 85 (1937), and the fact that ‘‘the Enfield Code of Ordi- nance[s] [§§] 9-10 through 9-13 makes the adjacent homeowner criminally liable for not clearing the side- walk of ice and snow, but does not specifically transfer liability to the property owner so the claim is properly again 2014The plaintiff brought an action in negligence and the defendants thereafter moved for summary judg- ment, arguing that ‘‘[t]he applicable [t]own . . . ordi- nance does not impose liability on the defendants for such an incident on a public sidewalk . . . .’’ Relying on Willoughby v. New Haven, 123 Conn. 446 , 197 A. 85 (1937), and the fact that ‘‘the Enfield Code of Ordi- nance[s] [§§] 9-10 through 9-13 makes the adjacent homeowner criminally liable for not clearing the side- walk of ice and snow, but does not specifically transfer liability to the property owner so the claim is properly again | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review of the Town of Middlebury
green
1 sentence1999That principle was stated by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Uniroyal, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 182 Conn. 619 , 633-34 (1981) and has been reiterated by trial courts in more recent tax appeals. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.