5 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Marriage of Rahngreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., In re Marriage of Rahn, 914 P.2d 463, 467 (Colo. App. 1995) (“restrictions of [ 29 U.S.C. § 1055 (c)] are designed to protect a surviving spouse, not a surviving former spouse”); Savage-Keough v. Keough, 373 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Savage-Keough v. Keoughgreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., In re Marriage of Rahn, 914 P.2d 463, 467 (Colo. App. 1995) (“restrictions of [ 29 U.S.C. § 1055 (c)] are designed to protect a surviving spouse, not a surviving former spouse”); Savage-Keough v. Keough, 373 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bushnell v. Bushnell
green
2 sentences1998Bushnell v. Bushnell, 103 Conn. 583, 587 , 131 A. 432 (1925). 1998Bushnell v. Bushnell, 103 Conn. 583, 587 , 131 A. 432 (1925). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Brown v. Brown
green
2 sentences1998Early on, this court rejected the doctrine of spousal immunity and held that a married woman could recover damages from her husband for an assault; Brown v. Brown, 88 Conn. 42, 47 , 89 A. 889 (1914); and that she could recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of her husband’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle in which she was a passenger. 1998Early on, this court rejected the doctrine of spousal immunity and held that a married woman could recover damages from her husband for an assault; Brown v. Brown, 88 Conn. 42, 47 , 89 A. 889 (1914); and that she could recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of her husband’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle in which she was a passenger. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Spitz
green
1 sentence1998As the plaintiffs rightly note, the privilege was first recognized by our State Supreme Court in Spitz's Appeal from Commissioners, supra , where the Court described its purpose and scope in the following terms: The rule of the common law that the wife shall not testify against the husband is founded upon their legal unity and the policy of preventing discord between them. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Silverman v. Silverman
green
2 sentences1993Silverman v. Silverman, 145 Conn. 663 , 666 , 145 A.2d 826 (1958). 1993Silverman v. Silverman, 145 Conn. 663 , 666 , 145 A.2d 826 (1958). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Hurley v. Hurley
green
2 sentences1987In denying a spousal claim, a Pennsylvania court, in Hurley v. Hurley, 342 Pa. Super. 156 , 492 A.2d 439 (1985) , concluded that the legislature intended to preclude division since state law excluded from the definition of marital property “property acquired after separation until date of divorce.” In that case the injury was sustained and the suit was initiated during the marriage, but the award was received after separation but prior to divorce. 1987In denying a spousal claim, a Pennsylvania court, in Hurley v. Hurley, 342 Pa. Super. 156 , 492 A.2d 439 (1985) , concluded that the legislature intended to preclude division since state law excluded from the definition of marital property “property acquired after separation until date of divorce.” In that case the injury was sustained and the suit was initiated during the marriage, but the award was received after separation but prior to divorce. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.