Amore v. Frankel

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Amore v. Frankel

621 A.2d 286, 225 Conn. 904, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 76

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedFebruary 11, 1993

DocketSC 14689

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 621 A.2d 286 (Amore v. Frankel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amore v. Frankel, 621 A.2d 286, 225 Conn. 904, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 76 (Colo. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant commissioner’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 29 Conn. App. 565 (AC 10677), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Does the duty of the commissioner of transportation to maintain highways, bridges and sidewalks under General Statutes § 13a-144 extend to driveways?

[905]*905Decided February 11, 1993 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14689. Michael 0 ’Sullivan, in support of the petition. Robert J. Enright, in opposition.

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the trial court’s dismissal of this action on the basis that the complaint stated a cause of action under General Statutes § 13a-144, notwithstanding the affidavits of the defendant indicating that the defendant had no duty to keep the area in question in repair?”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The defendant commissioner’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 29 Conn. App. 565 (AC 10677), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Does the duty of the commissioner of transportation to maintain highways, bridges and sidewalks under General Statutes § 13a-144 extend to driveways?

[905]*905Decided February 11, 1993 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14689. Michael 0 ’Sullivan, in support of the petition. Robert J. Enright, in opposition.

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the trial court’s dismissal of this action on the basis that the complaint stated a cause of action under General Statutes § 13a-144, notwithstanding the affidavits of the defendant indicating that the defendant had no duty to keep the area in question in repair?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 A.2d 286, 225 Conn. 904, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amore-v-frankel-conn-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack